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

Annotations already indicate idempotence, non-read-only behavior, and non-destructiveness. The description adds real context by explaining that the tool sends an OCPP GetDiagnostics request and causes the charger to upload a diagnostic file. It does not mention asynchronous behavior or acknowledgments, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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: the first states the action and protocol, the second provides the practical trigger scenario. It is concise, front-loaded, and 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 one-parameter, well-annotated command tool, the description provides sufficient operational context: what the tool does, the protocol involved, and when it should be used. It lacks only explicit detail about the response or asynchronous nature, which is a minor gap given there is no output 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 coverage is 100% and the single charge_point_id parameter already has a clear description in the input schema with an example value. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific action: 'Pide al cargador que suba su fichero de diagnóstico' and names the underlying protocol (OCPP GetDiagnostics). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like reiniciar_cargador or estado_en_vivo by its diagnostic purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Es el primer paso razonable ante un cargador que falla y no dice por qué.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use them, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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