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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it consumes saldo (a financial side effect), it only works within the loaded validity period, and it declares version and disclaimer. These are significant disclosures that go beyond annotations and help the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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?

The description is concise, with three sentences that carry essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds behavioral notes. No filler or redundancy. The only slight issue is the density of jargon (e.g., 'SBC', 'NOMINA', 'deslinde') which may require domain knowledge, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers key behavioral constraints (validity period, balance consumption) but omits details about the 'dias' and 'fecha_calculo' parameters. It also does not mention error conditions or output format specifics, though an output schema exists. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with IMSS terminology.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains sbc_diario (daily SBC) and prima_riesgo (optional for Riesgos de Trabajo), but it does not clarify the meaning of 'dias' or 'fecha_calculo'. With four parameters and half undocumented, the description falls short of providing sufficient parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb (calculate) and resource (IMSS and Infonavit quotas) based on daily SBC. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculation tools like calcular_isr and calcular_laboral by naming the exact subject matter. The mention of 'Riesgos de Trabajo' as an optional component adds further specificity.

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?

The description provides contextual guidance: it consumes balance (saldo) and references consultar_precios for current rates, implying it's a paid service. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calcular_isr or calcular_laboral, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The condition for using prima_riesgo is clear, but the overall routing guidance is implicit.

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