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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: the statutory basis (art. 132 fr. XXXIV, art. 994 fr. IV Bis), the effective date, and the 250–5,000 UMA range. It still does not say in what shape the answer comes back (amount only vs. breakdown), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 key fact (fine in pesos) is front-loaded, followed by legal grounding and the use case. The trailing English sentence is redundant for a Spanish-language tool and the parenthetical citation is dense, but nothing is wasted enough to hurt scanability.

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-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, legal scope, effective date, and the magnitude of the answer. The only real gap is the return shape, which the description gestures at (pesos, UMA range) without pinning down.

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% and both parameters (uma, anio) are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the UMA range gives indirect context for the 'uma' override, but it never explains the anio parameter or that a custom UMA/year alters the result.

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?

Names the exact object (la multa en pesos por no llevar el registro electrónico de la jornada) and grounds it in specific legal articles, so an agent knows this returns a fine amount, not attendance data. It is distinguishable from the record-keeping siblings by being about the penalty rather than the record itself, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ("cuánto es la multa", "qué pasa si no llevan control de asistencia", "desde cuándo es obligatorio") that map directly onto likely user questions. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or which tool to reach for when the user actually wants jornada records.

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