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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds value beyond that by enumerating what stops working (attendance, reminders, billing) and clarifying that historical records are preserved. That "what is and isn't destroyed" detail is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 ordered by importance: effect, permanence of records, then usage restriction. Nothing is buried, and the trailing English gloss is a one-line aid rather than padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the effects, the irreversibility boundary, and the trigger condition — everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (empresa, empleado) are already documented, including the multi-company condition for empresa. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond "una persona," so the 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?

"Da de baja a una persona" names a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up clause spells out the concrete effects (stops attendance logging, stops reminders, stops billing) plus the preservation of prior records. An agent can distinguish this from onboarding-type siblings (dar_de_alta_empleados) 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?

"Úsala solo cuando el usuario pida explícitamente dar de baja, quitar o desactivar a alguien" gives both a positive trigger set and an explicit restriction against proactive use. That is a genuine when/when-not rule rather than an implied one.

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