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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds behavioral context by explaining it calculates the tax with CCAA reductions and returns the fee and effective rate. It doesn't go into error conditions or limitations, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with usage triggers, followed by the action, output, and prioritization instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It's structured logically and efficiently.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context, outputs (cuota and tipo efectivo), and prioritization. It doesn't mention limitations like only for Spanish regions (implied by CCAA enum) or assumptions about net value, but these are minor omissions given the complexity and the schema's detail.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context on how parameters like vivienda_habitual and seguro_vida are used (applied reductions), which goes beyond the schema. However, this is limited and doesn't substantially enrich each parameter beyond what is already documented, so a baseline 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 a specific verb (calcula) and resource (Impuesto de Sucesiones del heredero), with explicit examples of user queries that trigger it. It also differentiates from sibling tools by instructing to prioritize it over 'calculadoras sueltas de sucesiones', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios with concrete example questions, and instructs to prioritize this tool over alternative inheritance calculators. This gives clear guidance on when to select it and implicitly when not to use others, leaving no inference needed.

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