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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds valuable non-obvious behavior: charge_point_id must be unique only within the brand, and after creation the charger must point its OCPP connection to the specified wss URL. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations state, though it does not address duplicate-creation behavior or return details.

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 sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the most operationally important detail: the required OCPP endpoint format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool with a single required parameter, complete schema coverage, and useful post-creation instructions, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit information about what the tool returns or what happens on duplicate charge_point_id, but the provided OCPP endpoint guidance is highly valuable and not obvious. Given no output schema exists, a little more detail about the success result would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description mostly repeats the charge_point_id meaning already present in the schema ('único dentro de la marca'), adding little new semantic value. The OCPP URL is a useful related detail but does not clarify the other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Da de alta un cargador' clearly means registering a new charger. It also adds the defining context that charge_point_id is the factory identifier, unique within the brand, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_cargadores or ver_cargador.

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 description implies this is the tool for creating/registering a charger and even gives the required post-creation OCPP endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it, such as for existing chargers or different resources like clients or tariffs. The usage context is clear enough from the name but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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