Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, and the description adds substantive context: it discloses the output format (ASCII table), that measurements are net cut sizes in mm, and the kerf limitation of 3-4 mm when computing board consumption. This is valuable behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but each sentence carries distinct value: output, use case, argument structure, and a technical limitation. The trailing English keywords are redundant but do not undermine clarity; a shorter version could merge the argument sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex nested schema and the output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool returns, in what units, with which limitation, and how to obtain a preset id. It doesn't enumerate furniture kinds, but that is already encoded in the params oneOf schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains preset, params, and ajustes, including how they relate. The description adds cross-tool context ('Acepta los mismos args que cotizar_mueble') and repeats the listar_presets guidance, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Genera la lista completa de piezas de corte y herrajes para fabricar un mueble', and enumerates output fields (largo, ancho, espesor en mm, material, tapacanto frontal, tabla ASCII). It also distinguishes itself from cotizar_mueble by noting it accepts the same args but produces a cut list, so an agent can tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Usala cuando el usuario necesita la planilla de cortes... o quiere verificar qué componentes tiene el mueble', and points to listar_presets as a prerequisite when the preset id is unknown. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for pricing), so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.