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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers key non-obvious behavior: the document is created in draft state and consumes no credit until enviar_documento is called, plus what the call returns (documentId, signingUrl). It still omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes, so not 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 tight sentences: what it does, where it sits in the flow, and the critical draft/no-credit caveat. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no restating of the title.

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 usefully names the returned documentId and signingUrl, and the draft/credit behavior fills an important gap. It stops short of describing the full response shape or error conditions, but the schema already carries the heavy parameter and credit semantics.

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% and the 8 parameters (firmantes sub-fields, biometría, WhatsApp flags, credit implications) are documented exhaustively in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 3 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Genera un documento de firma electrónica a partir de una plantilla') that clearly separates it from siblings like enviar_documento, descargar_documento_firmado or validar_pdf. An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool in a workflow ('listar_plantillas → esta herramienta → enviar_documento'), which tells the agent the prerequisite and the natural next step. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternative creation paths, so it falls short of a 5.

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