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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that cancellation is irreversible, that ambiguity results in NO cancellation plus a returned list, and that the client is not notified automatically. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the success response, though an output schema exists.

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 owner scope and the two lookup modes, then layers the safety caveat and the reminder. Every sentence carries information, though the closing reminder sits slightly apart from the operational core.

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 5-param destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical risks: irreversibility, no-guessing on ambiguity, and the notification gap. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. The unexplained required params 'clave' and 'negocio' are the remaining gap.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the two lookup paths (folio vs. nombre_cliente + fecha), which clarifies three params, but the required 'clave' and 'negocio' parameters are never mentioned or disambiguated.

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+resource with explicit ownership scoping: 'cancelar una cita de su propio negocio'. This cleanly separates it from the sibling 'cancelar_reserva', which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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 explicit activation context ('Para el DUEÑO') and two concrete invocation modes (por folio, o por nombre del cliente y fecha). It also states what happens when the request is ambiguous, which is exactly the decision guidance an agent needs.

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