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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: an all-or-nothing rejection that sends no emails, plus error-handling guidance (explain the reason, do not auto-retry). It stops short of 5 because auth requirements, idempotency, and rate limits are unstated.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then the failure mode and follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the imperative 'Explicá el motivo y no reintentes' is slightly advisory boilerplate.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the atomic-failure behavior, and error handling. Missing only tangential details like auth scope and success confirmation, which is reasonable given there is no output schema to explain returns.

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%: 'firmantes' is documented in the schema (recipientId from obtener_documento) and the description reinforces its semantics via 'firmantes pendientes' and signing order, but 'documento_id' is undocumented in both places and the description does not compensate. Baseline-to-marginal for partial coverage.

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 and resource (reenvía el email a firmantes pendientes) with an added scope qualifier (respetando el orden de firma), which separates it conceptually from enviar_documento and obtener_documento. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Gives clear context and an exclusion condition: the tool is for pending signers and the whole request is rejected if any chosen signer is still awaiting their turn. It does not name alternative tools for related needs, so it stops short of 5.

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