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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe, non-mutating consultation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it orchestrates multiple calculations in one call and returns an integrated analysis with a recommendation, which is not inferable from the annotation alone.

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?

Front-loads the domain and purpose, then each sentence adds distinct routing or scope information: example questions, orchestration contents, return nature, prioritization, and the standalone-tool exclusion. The length is justified by the multi-calculation orchestration role and reads without padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must indicate what is returned; it names the integrated components and a recommendation, which is enough for selection. It omits return structure and jurisdiction/temporal caveats, but these are minor for a read-only consult with complete input schema documentation.

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 six parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the example 'facturo X'; the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('consulta de escenario' for autónomos) and defines the integrated scope: RETA quota, estimated IRPF, net available income, and autónomo vs SL comparison. It distinguishes itself from sibling individual calculators by telling the agent to prioritize it when the question combines those elements.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example user questions and a clear combination condition (ingresos + cuota/IRPF/neto/SL decision). Also gives when-not-to-use guidance: standalone tools only for an isolated datum, and it asserts priority over individual calculators including those on other servers.

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