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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds context about what the result covers (location and distribution strategy), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, authorization needs, or return format. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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. It front-loads the core meaning ('Límite de kW por ubicación y estrategia de reparto') and then provides the key usage context. Every word 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 read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, in what granularity it returns it, and when an agent should call it. There is no output schema, but the described result is simple enough that the phrase 'Límite de kW por ubicación y estrategia de reparto' gives adequate expectation of the response.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. Per the calibration baseline for a zero-parameter tool, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the meaning of the result rather than invocation details.

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 names the exact object of the tool: 'Límite de kW por ubicación y estrategia de reparto' (kW limit by location and distribution strategy), and uses the imperative 'Consúltalo' to make the query action explicit. It is clearly distinct from the listed siblings, which mostly concern creating, starting, stopping, or listing other entities.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: consult this before starting loads at sites with tight contracted power ('antes de arrancar cargas en sitio con potencia contratada justa'). This maps directly to the sibling 'askacharge_arrancar_carga'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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