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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: an empty resumen_confirmado causes nothing to be created and instead returns the summary for the agent to read back. It does not describe what a successful call returns or any auth/rate characteristics.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler. The most important fact (the only tool that creates anything) is front-loaded, followed by the precondition and then the failure mode of the confirmation field.

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 19-parameter, 10-required creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirmation gating and the empty-resumen behaviour well, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, a large share of required parameters remain unexplained anywhere, and the success return value is left implicit, so more guidance would help.

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 only 42%, so the description should carry more weight than the baseline. It does add real meaning for resumen_confirmado (must contain exactly what was read to the person; empty means no creation) and enumerates its expected content, but the remaining undocumented parameters (nombre, email, tipo_vehiculo_id, tipo_informe_ids, acepta_condiciones, autorizacion_vendedor, etc.) are left to the schema.

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+resource ('Da de alta la solicitud de revisión') and explicitly differentiates itself from every sibling by declaring 'Es la ÚNICA herramienta que crea algo'. An agent can immediately tell this apart from buscar_servicio, consultar_precio or estado_reserva without opening any schema.

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 a concrete, hard precondition for calling it: the person must have been told out loud what they are contracting (vehicle, report, province, price) and must have said yes. This is clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative tools or describe failure/retry paths, so it falls just short of a 5.

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