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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no personal data is requested or returned, and the escrito leaves name/DNI/domicile as bracketed placeholders. That is information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations and directly shapes how the call should be made.

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 action and the motivos list, and the personal-data constraint is stated early. The closing sentence ('No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas en la llamada') largely repeats the preceding clause about bracketed placeholders, a minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return burden, and it does describe the output shape (an escrito with bracketed gaps). For a 7-field generator tool with a nested velocidad object, this is close to complete; only the document format/length is left unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven fields. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that the motivos selection determines the body of the escrito, which is a semantic consequence not evident from the enum list alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Compone las alegaciones contra una denuncia de tráfico') and enumerates the motivos that shape the document, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against (reposicion_contra_sancion_trafico, identificacion_conductor), leaving differentiation to the domain phrasing.

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 real selection guidance: 'Los motivos cambian el cuerpo del escrito: elige los que se sostengan en el caso', plus explicit when-not instructions ('No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas en la llamada'). It never names an alternative tool for a different procedural stage, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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