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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: sending data is gated on user confirmation, requires acepta_ser_contactado true, and the data is used only to reply — a privacy commitment absent from structured fields. It does not say what a successful call returns or whether duplicate registrations are possible.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: what is recorded, when it may be called with the consent gate, and the data-use guarantee. The gating condition is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, consent, and data usage — everything needed to decide to call it. It leaves the post-call outcome unstated (confirmation message, whether a follow-up channel is opened), a minor gap given there is no output schema to explain returns.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, including optional ones (empresa, whatsapp) and the consent flag. The description restates the field set and the consent semantics rather than adding syntax, formats, or validation rules beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Registra") plus the exact resource fields captured (nombre, correo, empresa, necesidad) and the outcome (que Miss Yera le escriba). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like agendar_diagnostico or cotizar_capacitacion, which schedule or compute rather than capture contact data.

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 condition ("solo cuando el usuario pida explícitamente que Miss Yera lo contacte") and a procedural prerequisite (show the data, then obtain acceptance). It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., agendar_diagnostico) for cases where the user wants a meeting instead of a callback, so it falls just short of the top bar.

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