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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the calculation outputs (cuota íntegra, diferencial, tipo efectivo) and confirming it is a non-destructive calculation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that combines purpose and outputs. It is somewhat dense but not overly long. Could be improved by breaking into separate sentences for clarity, but it is functional.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (cuota íntegra, diferencial, tipo efectivo). It covers the main inputs (work, capital, gains) and deductions. Missing details like result accuracy or assumptions, but overall complete for a financial calculation 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides a high-level overview but does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates the IRPF quota from work, capital, and capital gains, applying deductions and personal/family minimums. It specifies the outputs (full quota, differential, effective rate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calcular_sueldo_neto' or 'calcular_deduccion_maternidad_irpf', which focus on narrower aspects of IRPF.

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 implies the tool is for general IRPF calculation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings that specialize in specific parts of IRPF (e.g., deductions, plusvalías). No 'when not to use' or alternatives guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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