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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuine context: it neither requests nor returns personal data, and the writ deliberately leaves name/DNI/domicile/contact as bracketed blanks, plus it discloses the caución content. What it omits is the actual return format of the generated document.

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?

Three sentences, purpose and legal basis front-loaded, no filler padding. The privacy point is stated twice ('No pide ni devuelve datos personales… No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas'), a mild redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 document-composition tool with 8 fully documented parameters, no output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies the legal grounding, the intended content (suspension plus caución argument) and the data-handling boundary. Only the shape/size of the produced writ is left unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's data-handling note is cross-cutting rather than per-field and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond 'what is not a field', so it does not lift the score.

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 and resource: 'Compone la solicitud de suspensión del acto administrativo', anchored to art. 130.1 LJCA, so the agent knows exactly what document is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling writ-generation tools (e.g. demanda_juzgado_social, apelacion_auto_inadmision_contencioso), so it falls short of a 5.

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 art. 130.1 premise functions as an implicit when-to-use condition: suspension is sought before execution renders the appeal moot, and art. 133.1 frames the caución discussion. It also gives an explicit exclusion — do not solicit or include personal data. No alternative sibling is named, so no 5.

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