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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context: it is 'Determinista' (deterministic) and an 'Estimacion' (estimation) due to variable factors like prima RT and days, which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's nature.

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 a single, dense paragraph that packs a lot of information without repetition. It is efficient but could benefit from clearer sentence breaks or bullet points for easier scanning. Still, it is appropriately sized for 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the computed quota types and notes the estimation nature. For a read-only, deterministic tool, this provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what it returns. However, the precise output structure is not specified.

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?

100% schema description coverage means parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'topado a 25 UMA') but does not elaborate on individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calcula') and resource ('cuotas IMSS obrero-patronales'), detailing the types of quotas. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (other fiscal calculations) by focusing exclusively on IMSS, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies use for IMSS quota calculations and includes a disclaimer ('Informativo, no asesoria'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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