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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the important behavioral framing that output items are questions to put to the client rather than tax assessments or instructions, which directly governs how the agent should relay results. It does not mention result size, whether an empty set is normal, or cost/latency limits.

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?

Scope and purpose lead; the enumeration, though long, earns its place by defining exactly which gaps qualify; the closing sentence is a compact presentation rule. No filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

With only three parameters and no output schema, the description does the heavier lifting well by characterizing the result as per-point client questions and by pinning down period/client scope. It could still be clearer about result shape (grouping, counts, empty-result meaning) for an agent composing a response.

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 67%: link_id and quarter are documented in the schema (including the omit-for-whole-year rule), and the description reinforces cardinality by saying 'ONE accepted client'. The undescribed `year` parameter gets no help from the description, and no format or default guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 concrete analytical task ('what is missing or does not add up formally') scoped to 'ONE accepted client's period' and then enumerates the exact finding types (expenses without receipt, draft invoices, suppliers without NIF above the 347 threshold, missing Veri*factu records, absent recurring receipts). An agent can tell this apart from gestoria_resumen_mandante or gestoria_export without opening the 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?

Sets clear preconditions — a gestoría account, one accepted client, a period — and ties itself to the same source as REVISION.txt and quarter-close reminders, which tells the agent when this fits (pre-close review). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to use instead for a multi-client or summary view.

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