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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real side-effect disclosure: credit consumption, the draft state without this call, default email/WhatsApp/SMS invitation behavior, and that disabling emails still leaves the document in signing state. It omits idempotency/re-call behavior (whether credit is consumed twice) and any auth or error context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the credit consequence, then layers the email nuances in order of relevance. It is somewhat long, but each sentence (credit, default emails, enviar_email:false, finalization emails) addresses a distinct behavioral fact rather than padding.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral consequences an agent needs before invoking it (state transition, billing side effect, email side effects). The main remaining gap is what happens on repeated calls and what the call 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the description largely restates enviar_email and enviar_email_finalizacion semantics. It adds some operational meaning by tying enviar_email:false to the workflow of self-distributing signingUrls, but this is marginal over the structured fields, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 in domain terms: it places the document into signing state and consumes the document credit, explicitly noting that without this step it stays as a draft. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling obtener_documento by explaining that signingUrls are retrieved there.

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 for use (this is the step that finalizes a draft and consumes credit) and explains an alternative mode via enviar_email:false where the caller distributes signingUrls themselves. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus siblings like reenviar_invitacion, leaving that inference to the agent.

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