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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the subject matter returned, including the non-obvious detail that the visit cost applies if no repair is made, which an agent needs to answer pricing questions correctly.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the provider identity and then lists contents, the second gives the usage instruction. The parenthetical geography is efficient. The content list is dense but each item corresponds to a real question the tool answers, so little is wasted.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned topics (services, equipment, coverage, slots, conditions, warranty, contact). For a zero-argument informational tool, nothing an agent needs before calling is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a parameterless lookup by describing it as a consultable catalog rather than hinting at filters that do not exist.

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?

The description names a concrete resource (the Hogar Montevideo service catalog) and enumerates its contents: service types, appliances covered, neighborhoods, time slots, visit-cost conditions, warranty and contact. It also scopes the business geographically (Montevideo and Ciudad de la Costa), which lets an agent distinguish it from the scheduling and warranty-code siblings.

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?

"Usala para responder dudas o comprobar cobertura antes de agendar" gives a clear trigger (answering questions, checking coverage) and positions it relative to the scheduling siblings by placing it before booking. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming agendar_servicio by name, so it falls just 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.