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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: 'Gratis' and especially that only the request and CCAA are stored, with no personal data. What is missing is the outcome behavior — whether it returns a confirmation, is queued, or has a turnaround — so an agent proposing this mutation to a user lacks the follow-up picture.

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 short sentences, front-loading the action and the pricing/privacy caveats with essentially no filler. Terse and well-ordered, though the last clause slightly overlaps the existing schema note on 'tema'.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and data handling. It should still say what the agent receives after submitting (confirmation, ticket, timing), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 50%: 'tema' is documented in the schema, while 'ccaa' has only maxLength=80 with no description. The description partially compensates by naming CCAA as a stored field (implying a region), but it gives no format/values for ccaa, so the parameter story remains half-told.

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 (solicitar) plus resource (nuevo dataset administrativo español / más cobertura ITV), so the action is unambiguous. It is clearly distinct in kind from the siblings (cita_itv, cobertura, tarifa_itv, etc.), but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself, 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?

Usage is implied — request a dataset that does not yet exist, or more ITV coverage, at no cost. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no precondition, and no routing to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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