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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that no API key is required ('Sin clave') and that the source data is public, which is exactly the kind of auth context the annotations do not carry.

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 sentences with no padding, front-loading the computation and its inputs before the data/auth notes. Efficient, though the trailing 'Datos públicos. Sin clave.' fragments could be merged.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of the two outputs (tramo and cuota mínima estimada) is genuinely helpful. However, for a calculation tool with a 'tabla' variant selector and a year parameter, the definition omits what distinguishes the tabla options and how the year affects results.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It indirectly references the required 'neto' input ('por rendimiento neto') but never explains the 'tabla' enum (general vs reducida) or the 'anio' default of 2026, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: calcular el tramo y la cuota mínima of autónomos RETA based on rendimiento neto. Naming 'autónomos (RETA)' naturally separates it from cuota_irpf and escala_irpf, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Datos públicos. Sin clave.' implies an open, unauthenticated calculation context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over cuota_irpf or escala_irpf, nor any exclusion or precondition. Usage is only implied.

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