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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (statutory public-data basis, no API key, excluded components) but says nothing about rounding, year coverage of the bracket tables, or result format.

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 short front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope and exclusions come before the access note. 'Datos públicos. Sin clave.' could arguably be trimmed but is cheap and useful for authentication expectations.

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?

No output schema and no annotations on the calculation contract, so the description should at minimum explain the 'escala' enum (general vs savings income) and that 'anio' selects the bracket set. With 3 params and 0% schema coverage, the current text is adequate but leaves key inputs ambiguous.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates by fixing the meaning of the required 'base' as the taxable base ('base liquidable'). 'anio' (default 2026) and the 'general' vs 'ahorro' enum values are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Calcula) and resource (cuota íntegra ESTATAL del IRPF) and precisely limits scope: sum of marginal brackets, excludes regional scale and personal minimums. Clearly distinguishable from sibling escala_irpf (which likely returns the bracket table, not the tax amount).

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?

Implies usage ('a partir de una base liquidable') and states exclusions ('No incluye escala autonómica ni mínimos'), which steers away from total-IRPF expectations, but never explicitly says when to use it versus escala_irpf or cuota_reta.

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