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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that the tool consumes balance (cost), that results are mathematical and not official resolutions, and that each response declares the table/version used. These are valuable behavioral traits not captured in the annotations.

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 a single dense sentence that packs in purpose, cost, and disclaimer. It is not front-loaded with the most critical info first and could benefit from bullet points or segmentation, but it is not overly verbose.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not specify which parameters are required for each concept, the expected input formats, or the return structure beyond mentioning table/version declaration. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions the 'concepto' parameter's possible values. The other eight parameters (fecha_baja, salario_diario, etc.) are left completely unexplained, leaving an agent without guidance on their meaning or which are relevant per concept.

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 clearly states the tool calculates Mexican labor concepts (aguinaldo, prima_vacacional, finiquito) under LFT, with breakdown, legal basis, and disclaimer. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators like calcular_imss and calcular_isr by naming specific labor concepts, leaving no ambiguity about its domain.

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 implies usage by listing the supported concepts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools. It does warn that it consumes balance, which is a usage consideration, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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