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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it 'No cambia nada en el cargador' and explains the result arrives via webhook connector.status, viewable in another tool. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the actual effect and follow-up, which is valuable for an agent.

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 slightly long but every sentence adds value: it explains the mechanism, provides usage timing, confirms non-destructiveness, and points to the output channel. It is front-loaded with the core action and then details. Not overly verbose, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what happens after the request (state arrives via webhook, viewable in askacharge_ver_cargador) and how it fits into a workflow (after a command). It is complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of each requested_message type (e.g., 'Heartbeat para comprobar que responde') and clarifies connector_id behavior ('si se omite, el cargador entero'), enriching the schema.

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 verb ('Pide al cargador que envíe ya un mensaje concreto'), the resource (the charger), and the specific OCPP messages it can request (StatusNotification, Heartbeat, MeterValues). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling askacharge_ver_cargador by noting the new state is visible there, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Úsalo tras un comando para verificar el resultado sin esperar al siguiente latido' tells when to use it, and it clarifies the alternative for viewing the result (askacharge_ver_cargador). It also states it does not change anything, which sets expectations clearly.

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