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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a calculator. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the calculation logic (per type, days per year, caps, dual pre-2012 tramo), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose and key parameters, the second gives an alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core calculation logic and boundaries. However, it does not mention the return format (presumably a single numeric amount), but the tool's simplicity mitigates this. Overall adequate for a calculator tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the enum values (33 días/año for improcedente, etc.) and the dual pre-2012 logic, which helps the agent understand parameter selection beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it calculates only dismissal compensation (indemnización por despido) based on specific types (improcedente 33 días/año, objetivo/ERE 20 días/año) with caps and dual pre-2012 calculation. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'consulta_despido' which covers the full analysis including finiquito and paro.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool (for solo indemnization calculation) and when not to use it (for full analysis including finiquito and paro, use 'consulta_despido'), providing clear alternatives.

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