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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful non-schema trait: a $0.01 USDC cost when payments are active. However, it omits the return format, any prerequisite conditions, and what the flagged 'excepciones' actually mean operationally.

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?

Two tight clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The appended pricing sentence is compact, though it slightly interrupts the conceptual flow of the domain description.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more work than this terse snippet. It leaves the special_use parameter and the enum semantics undocumented and gives no sense of what the returned periodicity data looks like.

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%, so the description should compensate, and it only partially does: 'categoría y antigüedad' conceptually map to category and age_years, but the special_use boolean is never mentioned and the category enum values (M1, N1, L1e, L_otros) are left unexplained.

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?

Names a specific resource (ITV periodicity) and the two governing dimensions (category and age), so the agent understands it computes inspection frequency. It differentiates itself from siblings like tarifa_itv (rate) and cita_itv (appointment) by focusing on periodicity, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the five sibling tools. The 'según BOE' clause indicates the authority for the rule but not the invocation context.

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