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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real pricing behavior instead — the tariff band, the drivers of price (tamaño, personas, equipo, rubro, urgencia), the 16-hour bonificación and the 4-hour minimum. It does not say whether the quote is deterministic or whether IGV is fixed at 18%, a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the price band, then the return values, then the usage trigger. The middle sentence is a dense run-on enumerating five cost drivers, which costs some scanability but each clause carries 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?

For a read-only calculator with no output schema, the definition covers the price logic, the discount floor, the minimum hours and the exact returned fields (tarifa, subtotal, IGV, total, costo por persona, detalle). Only the currency/IGV rate assumption and the effect of tema/lugar are left unstated.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by naming which parameters move the price and roughly how (size, headcount, support team, industry, urgency, hour-based discount). It still omits tema and lugar as pricing factors, so an agent cannot tell whether those affect the total.

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 ("Calcula la inversión de una capacitación in company en IA") plus concrete price scope (S/400–S/1,200 por hora + IGV). It is clearly distinguishable from the pricing-adjacent siblings calcular_roi_ia and calcular_ahorro_tiempo_ia, which measure savings rather than quoting a course fee.

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 an explicit trigger: "Úsala cuando una empresa pregunte cuánto cuesta capacitar a su equipo en IA con Miss Yera." That is a clear when-to-use, but it names no alternative and no when-not case (e.g., versus listar_servicios for a service catalog or pedir_contacto for closing the sale).

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