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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are estimates based on 'factores conservadores de la calculadora de missyera.com', and it enumerates the three return dimensions (horas/mes, soles/mes, soles/año), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating assumptions, rounding, or whether output is cost-only vs. net of investment.

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 sentences, no filler: the first defines what is computed and from which inputs, the second gives the usage trigger. Output dimensions are front-loaded before the when-to-use clause, which is the right order for a calculation tool.

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 correctly compensates by naming the three returned figures and the unit (soles). All four required params are documented in the schema. The remaining gap is the lack of any cue distinguishing this from calcular_ahorro_tiempo_ia, which an agent comparing siblings will notice.

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% and every parameter has an inline description with enum values and bounds, so the description restates the same inputs (horas semanales por persona, número de personas, costo por hora) without adding semantics such as whether horas_semana is per-person or per-area. Baseline 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 (estima) and a concrete resource/output (horas al mes, soles al mes y al año ahorrados por un área con IA), plus the basis of the calculation. It does not name or distinguish itself from the very similar sibling calcular_ahorro_tiempo_ia, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'cuando alguien quiera justificar o calcular el retorno de invertir en IA o automatización.' That is a clear usage trigger, but no exclusion or alternative is named, even though calcular_ahorro_tiempo_ia and cotizar_capacitacion occupy adjacent territory.

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