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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the full state machine (acked, confirmed, timeout, rejected, failed), the timeout window (5-10 minutes), and the meaning of expected_event. This is critical behavioral context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly and is not present in the annotations alone.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the states and usage guidance. There is no redundant or filler text; it is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (states, events, and the two-phase nature). It also covers the optional behavior without job_id and the rationale for using it instead of re-sending commands, making it complete for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to job_id by explaining it is returned by every command tool and that omitting it lists recent commands. It also clarifies the concept of expected_event. While charge_point_id is not explicitly mentioned in the description, the schema already covers it, and the description goes beyond the schema's simple parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the status of an OCPP command by job_id, and explains the two-phase nature of command execution. It differentiates itself from sibling command-issuing tools (e.g., arrancar_carga, reiniciar_cargador) by focusing on status retrieval rather than sending a command. The title 'Ver cómo va un comando lanzado' reinforces the specific verb and resource.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Úsala en vez de repetir el comando' (use it instead of repeating the command) and warns that repeating would start two charges or restart twice. It also explains when to omit job_id (to list recent commands), giving clear conditions for invocation versus alternatives.

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