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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: it explains that the composed document leaves personal data as bracketed gaps and that the agent must not request or write such data, which is output behavior not captured anywhere in the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the deadline and the personal-data constraint. The personal-data point is repeated across two sentences, which is slightly redundant, but the emphasis is intentional and the overall length stays reasonable.

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 drafting tool with no output schema and 86% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, timing, and the unusual data-handling rule well. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the format or structure of the composed written appeal that the agent should expect.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (hechos, organo, motivos, etc.). The description adds only negative information about fields that are absent (name, DNI, address), which is useful but does not add meaning to the documented parameters themselves. 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 a precisely named legal instrument (recurso de reposición contra la resolución que sanciona), which inherently distinguishes it from the alegaciones/procedimiento siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implicit through legal terminology rather than stated.

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?

Provides contextual timing guidance (one-month deadline from notification), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling alegaciones or apelación tools, and gives no explicit exclusions beyond the personal-data caveat.

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