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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a read-only calculation, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it specifies this is an orientative estimation, declares the liquidation of gananciales is not subject to IRPF, and states the model does not cover regional or foral rules. This goes beyond the simple read-only flag and helps set accurate expectations.

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 a single moderately sized paragraph that is efficiently organized: it starts with the main purpose, lists the covered items, then states exclusions and limitations. Each sentence delivers needed information without fluff. It could be slightly more structured with bullets, but it is concise enough given the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (17 parameters, conditional mandatory fields), the description covers the tool's scope of application, exclusions, and model validity limitations. It does not explicitly mention conditional parameter requirements, but those are fully documented in the schema. The description is complete for the behavioral contract, though it omits a direct note on how to handle regional variations when interpreting results.

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 baseline for this dimension is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does provide overall context that affects interpretation, such as the state-level model limitation. This is consistent with the baseline.

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 estimates the IRPF impact of divorce/separation in Spain and lists the specific tax items it covers (pensión compensatoria, mínimo por descendientes, imputación de renta, deducción por hipoteca). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing itself from general IRPF calculators like calcular_irpf by focusing on the divorce context.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it explicitly excludes ITP/AJD and plusvalía municipal, and notes it is a state-level model without CCAA or foral variations. This gives the agent boundaries on applicability, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly. The exclusions imply that for other taxes or regional nuances, one should use a different tool, but it doesn't say 'use X instead'.

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