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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, leaving room for the description to add value, which it does: it discloses the three return artifacts (text, requirements semaphore, draft token) and explicitly states no sending or billing occurs. It does not cover permission needs or token lifetime, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, what it returns, and what it does not do. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the return values, and all three required params are schema-documented. It is nearly complete; only finer behavioral details (e.g. what the 'semáforo' grades or token expiry) are missing.

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%, so the schema already documents caso, datos (with date/amount formats) and email. The description only adds 'a partir de los datos', which is a restatement rather than new semantic detail; the 3 baseline applies.

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 (Redacta/draft) and resource (el burofax de un caso) plus the source of data. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling enviar_burofax by declaring 'No envía ni cobra', so an agent can tell drafting from sending without opening either schema.

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?

Routes the agent to listar_casos for the case slug and names enviar_burofax as the consumer of the returned draft token, giving clear context for the workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the send/charge exclusion covers the main misuse case.

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