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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the output is a legal brief with personal-data gaps left as bracketed placeholders, so the caller must not supply personal data. It does not address default behavior or length/format of the generated escrito.

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, front-loaded with the legal purpose, then the personal-data constraint, then the operational instruction. Slight redundancy between the two ways of stating the privacy rule, but no wasted content.

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?

Given six parameters, one required, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition covers purpose, legal basis, the privacy constraint, and the motivo semantics. It omits procedural timing/deadlines and any indication of the generated brief's structure, which would help an agent set expectations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by mapping the motivos enumerated in the text to the schema's enum values and clarifying that personal-data fields are deliberately absent from the parameter set.

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?

Specific verb ('compone la oposición') plus precise legal resource ('providencia de apremio', art. 167.3 LGT), and it enumerates the five tasados motivos, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like reposicion_contra_sancion_trafico or alegaciones_denuncia_trafico.

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 frames the tool's scope (motivos tasados del art. 167.3) and explicitly says which data NOT to request, but it does not name an alternative tool or state the procedural condition under which this opposition is the right filing versus a reposición or apelación.

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