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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a calculation tool. Description explicitly states it returns BRUTO amounts and does not provide legal advice. No contradictions. It adds context about what the tool does not cover (legal procedure, ISR), which is helpful.

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 description is one dense paragraph but includes essential information: purpose, components, disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured, but no unnecessary words. Efficient given the complexity.

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 complex legal calculation tool, the description covers the key components and limitations. It mentions returning BRUTO amounts, which is critical. However, without an output schema, the description could detail what specific fields are returned. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 100% with each parameter documented. The tool description groups parameters into calculation components (aguinaldo proporcional, vacaciones, etc.) but does not add significant per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool calculates finiquito (resignation) or liquidacion (unjustified dismissal) and lists the LFT components (aguinaldo, vacation, etc.). It distinguishes between two scenarios and specifies the jurisdiction (LFT). This is specific and unique among sibling fiscal tools.

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 description explains when to use each type (finiquito for renuncia, liquidacion for despido injustificado). It advises that legal procedure and ISR should be confirmed with a professional, indicating the tool's scope is limited to calculation. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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