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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe pure computation, and the description adds real context: the percentage brackets (52/60/70%), the income test for the minimum complement, the non-contributory cap, and the dependency on whether the deceased was active, retired, or not registered. For a calculator this is good disclosure beyond the annotation.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose before the calculation breakdown. Every clause maps to a real output component, though the single long sentence is somewhat heavy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned and does so fully, listing base reguladora, applicable percentage, minimum complement, and final pension with the Social Security cap, plus the situational branching. An agent knows exactly what the calculation yields.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the enum and conditional requirements. The description restates the drivers (cargas familiares, ingresos) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Estima) and resource (pensión de viudedad) and enumerates the computed components (base reguladora, porcentaje, complemento a mínimos, pensión final). The resource is unambiguous among the many pension siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with calcular_pension_publica or calcular_pension_incapacidad.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent can infer it applies to widow's-pension cases, but nothing tells it when another pension tool is the better fit.

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