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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (kWp, costo total, ahorro anual, payback) and the `camino` marker, which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it never states that the tool is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor anything about cost, latency or data requirements (e.g. that latitud/region drive the irradiance model).

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 tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and the minimum data needed, then the free-text option, then the return shape. The closing line about `camino` is slightly cryptic since no output schema exists to explain what `camino` means, but nothing is padding.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers input sources, the free-text shortcut, and return fields reasonably well. The notable gap is what happens when none or only partial data is supplied, and how latitud/longitud/kwp interact with the quote — an agent must guess the minimum viable call.

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 relationship semantics the schema does not: monto_boleta and consumo_kwh_mes are alternatives, and comuna and region are alternatives for locating the property. The 'pago 80 lucas en Talca' example concretely illustrates what the free-text `consulta` field expects.

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: 'Calcula la cotización de un sistema solar residencial en Chile', plus the inputs it needs and the outputs it produces. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like precio_por_region (a price lookup) by promising a full quote with kWp, costo total, ahorro anual and payback, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 useful input context ('a partir de muy pocos datos: el monto de la boleta mensual (o el consumo en kWh) y la comuna o la región') and notes the optional free-text path, which implies when the tool fits. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if data is insufficient, and no routing to consultar_faq or precio_por_region.

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