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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the fact that this makes an external state change is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: a 6-month eligibility window, an internal warranty check that can fail, and an SMS actually being dispatched to the customer. It does not say what happens on a repeat call (does it resend a code, invalidate the old one?) or what the failure mode looks like when the phone has no covered services.

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 dense but purposeful sentences: the first front-loads what happens, the second covers the usage condition and the hand-off to the verification tool. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence carries three distinct ideas (exclusion, prompting for the code, next call) in one run-on clause.

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 single-parameter, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow end to end: precondition, action, and next step. The remaining gap is outcome semantics — with no output schema, it never says what a success versus a not-under-warranty response looks like, which matters for an agent that must decide whether to ask the customer for a code.

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 celular property already documents the Uruguayan 9-digit 09-prefixed format with an example. The description adds only the implicit notion that this is the contact number receiving the SMS, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether the given cellphone has services under warranty and sends an SMS code, scoped to Hogar Montevideo claims from the last 6 months. It clearly separates itself from verificar_codigo_garantia by naming it as the mandatory follow-up. It does not explain its relationship to agendar_reclamo, the other claim-related sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 sólo si el cliente quiere reclamar por un trabajo anterior" gives an explicit exclusions clause, and the description names the next tool to call once the code arrives. It still leaves implicit what the agent should do when the condition does not hold (for example, a new rather than prior job), where a sibling such as agendar_reclamo would presumably apply.

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