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

The readOnlyHint already establishes safety, and the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it lists the exact categories of findings, gives the Modelo 347 threshold, clarifies that findings are questions for the user, and explicitly excludes tax-advice judgment. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only check.

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 purpose and handover context are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples of what is checked and a crisp scope exclusion. The description is dense but every clause helps an agent understand what the check covers and what it does not.

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 read-only check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the checks and frames findings as user questions. It could say more about the shape or ordering of results, but the core behavior an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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%, and the schema already documents year and quarter, including that omitting quarter checks the whole year. The description reinforces the quarter-or-year scope but adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: check a quarter or year for missing documents and blockers before gestoría handover. It names concrete checks (recurring invoices, expenses without supplier/invoice number, drafts, Modelo 347 threshold cases) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from tax advice, making it clearly identifiable among the many invoice, expense, and gestoría siblings.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: before handing a period to the gestoría. It also states an important when-not: this is not tax advice and does not judge deductibility or rates. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use for tax calculations, so it falls short of full sibling routing.

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