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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does NOT check duplicates, so repeated calls create multiple clients; it inherits default tariff if tariff_group_id is omitted. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents serious misuse. No contradiction between description and annotations; in fact it reinforces non-idempotency.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core behavior, duplicate warning, and follow-up routing. Information is front-loaded (creation + return id first), warnings and alternatives follow logically. No fluff or redundancy.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (created client with id), covers the key side effect (duplicates possible), and provides sibling routing. It also covers the tariff inheritance corner case. Given the tool's complexity (6 params, 1 required) and 100% schema coverage, this is complete.

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 six parameters. The description adds semantic value for tariff_group_id by explaining the inheritance behavior, but other parameters (name, email, phone, company, client_type) are already well-described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description complements but does not heavily expand on schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Da de alta un cliente' (creates a customer) and explicitly mentions returning the created client with its id. It distinguishes from sibling askacharge_crear_tag_rfid (for authorizing cards) and askacharge_crear_cargador/crear_tarifa by focusing solely on client creation. The title reinforces this, and the non-duplicate warning adds a clear behavioral signature.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to create a client, but first check askacharge_listar_clientes to avoid duplicates, and follow up with askacharge_crear_tag_rfid if card authorization is needed. It also explains when to pass tariff_group_id (to inherit default tariff if omitted). This directly tells an agent when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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