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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect beyond structured data: the entry lands in the agenda that AI assistants read, so omitting it risks double-booking. It says nothing about permissions ('clave' is required), duplicate/conflict handling, or what happens on failure.

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 audience and action, then the rationale, then the parameter contrast — a sensible order. Slight padding in 'Esta es la importante', but overall the prose is tight and every sentence adds information.

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?

A mutation tool with 8 parameters, 6 required, no annotations and zero schema coverage needs heavy description support. The description explains the 'why' well but leaves most parameters, auth expectations and failure behaviour unexplained; the existing output schema only excuses the absence of return-value details.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and barely does. It only clarifies the optionality of 'contacto_cliente' (and recommends supplying it) while 'negocio', 'clave', 'persona', 'fecha', 'hora', 'servicio' and 'nombre_cliente' remain entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 concrete verb and resource ('meter en Aisha una cita') plus the intended actor ('Para el DUEÑO'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('A diferencia de crear_reserva'). The routing boundary is however drawn only at the parameter level (optional contact) rather than at the whole use case, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — bookings arriving by phone, WhatsApp, or walk-in must be entered here — and a strong rationale (otherwise AI assistants see an incomplete agenda and may sell an already-taken slot). It names crear_reserva as the counterpart but does not state the inverse condition that selects crear_reserva.

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