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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are evaluated against a maximum jornada that decreases each year from 2027 to 2030, so the same shift can pass in one year and fail in another, and the check is scoped to Mexican federal labor law specifically.

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 evaluative scope is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by the when-to-use triggers. The trailing English sentence duplicates the Spanish opening, which is mild redundancy rather than a structural flaw, but it prevents a 5.

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 single-purpose read-only computation tool with five mostly-optional parameters, the description covers the legal basis, the dimensions evaluated, and the year-dependence. The one gap is that with no output schema it never says what the verdict looks like (booleans, overtime totals, per-year breakdown), leaving the return shape to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by supplying concrete pattern examples ('12 en un 12x24, 24 en un 24x24') that map directly onto the NxM parameter combinations of horas_de_trabajo, horas_de_descanso and dias_por_semana. It does not add per-parameter defaults or enum semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Revisa si un esquema de turnos ... cabe en la Ley Federal del Trabajo de México') and spells out the exact checks performed: weekly hours against the maximum jornada, overtime per shift and per week, and the 12-hour daily cap. It names concrete shift patterns (12x24, 24x24, 24x48, 8 horas 6 días), which makes it unmistakable against payroll or attendance siblings like registro_de_jornada or horas_para_nomina.

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?

It gives explicit use triggers: 'Úsala cuando pregunten si un turno es legal, cuántas horas extra genera o cómo se verá con la jornada de 46 horas de 2027,' which covers compliance questions, overtime calculation, and forward-looking scenarios. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops 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.