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 goes further by disclosing a real degradation rule: per-day detail only for one person or a short range, and weekly totals plus a request to narrow the range for many people over a long span. That tells the agent upfront that a broad query will be refused-and-aggregated rather than failing silently. Return-format specifics (order, units, rounding) are still absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the output behaviour, then the usage triggers — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The trailing English one-liner largely repeats the opening Spanish sentence and could be dropped without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: daily detail with start/end times, weekly totals versus the annual maximum, and the aggregation path for oversized queries. Combined with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape.

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 defaults and date formats are already documented and the baseline applies. The description does add genuinely semantic context by linking the empleado and date-range parameters to the detail-vs-totals tradeoff, which the schema does not express. It adds no meaning for empresa, and nothing about what happens when a name is ambiguous.

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 with unusual precision: the statutory work-hour record under LFT art. 132 fr. XXXIV, per person, with start/end times and weekly totals against the legal maximum. An agent can tell this is the compliance record itself rather than a derived report like multa_registro_de_jornada. It never names a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 cuando pidan el registro de jornada, lo que se presenta a la STPS o a un inspector, o las horas semanales contra el límite legal" gives concrete trigger conditions tied to the user's phrasing. Missing is any explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance or a pointer to a neighbouring tool for adjacent questions (e.g. fines, attendance).

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