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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: it neither accepts nor returns personal data, and the document leaves those fields as bracketed blanks — directly actionable guidance ('do not ask for that data, do not write it'). It stops short of describing the actual return shape.

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 purpose and legal basis, then the personal-data constraint. The warning is stated twice ('no pide ni devuelve datos personales' and 'no le pidas esos datos'), which is mildly redundant, but the emphasis is defensible for an easily-misused constraint.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering context, and the critical input constraint. It could say what the tool actually returns (the composed text), but the 'no personal data in/out' note and the composition verb make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the pretension options (despido/cantidad/reconocimiento de derecho) which mirrors the enum, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — 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 (papeleta de conciliación), cites the governing articles (63/64 LRJS), and enumerates the three claim types. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling demanda_juzgado_social by framing itself as the pre-litigation step.

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?

Clearly says this is the step that precedes the demanda in most social matters, giving an agent a strong situational cue. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use instead when a lawsuit is required, but the 'before the demand' framing is unambiguous.

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