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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly does not ask for or return personal data, and the generated document leaves name, DNI, and address as bracketed placeholders. It also notes the legal prerequisite of conciliation, which affects invocation timing.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a legal reminder and a crucial PII constraint. Each sentence carries useful information, though it could be slightly tighter. It is well-structured and avoids filler.

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 legal-document composition tool with no output schema, the description explains what the output will contain (comparecencia, hechos, fundamentos, súplica) and clarifies that personal data are left as placeholders. It covers the key behavioral and usage constraints an agent needs, though it could explicitly state that it returns a draft text rather than filing anything.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the possible pretensiones (despido, cantidad, derechos) that are already in the enum and does not add syntax, format, or meaning for organo, hechos, or cantidad beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb ('Compone') and resource ('la demanda ante el Juzgado de lo Social') with the exact legal scope (arts. 80 y ss. LRJS) and the three claim types it supports. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like demanda_tutela_derechos_fundamentales or papeleta_conciliacion 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?

The description implies usage by listing the claim types it handles ('despido, cantidad o reconocimiento de derecho') and reminds of the pre-litigation conciliation requirement (art. 63 LRJS). However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly states when to choose this one over siblings, leaving the routing to inference.

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