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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds useful context: it changes availability via OCPP and does not physically disconnect the charger. However, it does not disclose possible side effects on active charging sessions or any authorization requirements.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the protocol is named parenthetically, and the usage guidance is packed into the second 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two fully described required parameters and annotations covering the destructive/mutating behavior, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of information about the expected response or outcome of the OCPP call, but this is minor.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the availability statuses but does not add meaningful parameter syntax or format details 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 concrete action, 'Pone un cargador operativo o fuera de servicio', and names the OCPP ChangeAvailability operation. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reiniciar_cargador or arrancar_carga, which target different behaviors.

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?

The second sentence gives an explicit use case: 'Úsalo para retirar de servicio un punto averiado sin desconectarlo.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used.

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