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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side-effect-free trait "No consume cuota," which is exactly the safety information an agent needs for a quota-check tool, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when quota is exhausted.

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?

Two short sentences: the purpose first, the cost profile second. No padding, and the most decision-relevant fact (it is free to call) is front-loaded after the purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively tells the agent what comes back (a count of remaining free calls for today). The main missing piece is what the result looks like when the quota is exhausted or how "this cliente" is identified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit "this cliente" scoping.

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 ("Muestra") and a specific resource ("cuántas llamadas gratis quedan hoy para este cliente"), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not need to name siblings because the surrounding tools (holidays, quotes, RUT) are clearly a different domain, though it also makes no explicit differentiation.

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 daily scope ("hoy") and the note "No consume cuota" imply when to call it (a cheap pre-flight quota check before spending calls), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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