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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds domain behavior the annotations cannot: table structure (rows 1–100, one column per age, last column applies from 100+). It also states the data-handling contract (no personal data consumed or returned, bracketed placeholders in the 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?

The purpose and table behavior are front-loaded and useful, but the personal-data warning is restated three times ('No pide ni devuelve datos personales…', 'No le pidas esos datos…'), which is repetition rather than new information.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, table semantics, the sibling alternative, and data-handling limits. The only minor gap is that the shape of the returned 'importe' is not described, though the verb 'devuelve el importe' makes it largely self-evident.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains the 1–100 row range and that ages of 100 or more fall back to the last column, which is behavioral detail the schema does not state.

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: returns the amount the 2026 baremo recognizes for a sequela score at a given age. It also differentiates itself from the sibling valorar_danos_personales by explicitly saying it is not a full valuation and pointing there for that case.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('la pregunta más frecuente al leer un informe médico') and names the alternative for full valuations, plus an explicit 'do not pass personal data' instruction. The alternative is described generically ('la herramienta de valoración completa') rather than by its exact name, and there is no explicit when-not beyond that.

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