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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: checks conditions, applies coefficients per quarter, and returns reduced pension and loss. It aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (no destructive actions) and adds context about the two modes and their requirements.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then provides specifics in logical order. Every sentence adds value without repetition, making it concise and effective.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers feasibility checks, coefficient application, and return values (reduced pension and loss). The mention of the prerequisite tool completes the context for proper invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the 'tipo' (voluntaria/involuntaria) with conditions (≥35 or ≥33 years), and clarifies 'pension_ordinaria' as the estimated monthly amount. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 the impact of early retirement, checks feasibility, applies reduction coefficients, and returns reduced pension and loss. It distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary types, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 guides when to use (to check feasibility and calculate reduction) and mentions a prerequisite (ordinary pension from 'consulta_jubilacion'). It implies when not to use (if no ordinary pension) and provides context for the two modes, aiding correct selection.

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