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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the code is single-use, the returned token expires in 60 minutes, and the code arrives by SMS. These are essential operational constraints an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false. It stops short of describing failure modes (invalid, expired, already-used code) which would matter for a verification call.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by outputs and downstream dependencies. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long enough that the token/return-value details could be structured more scannably.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (services with orden_id, token_garantia, 60-minute validity). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only error/retry behavior is absent.

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%: both celular (Uruguayan 09-prefixed number with example) and codigo (numeric SMS code, pattern) are fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions the code generically and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Verifica el código recibido por SMS") and then spells out exactly what comes back: the in-warranty services for that phone with their orden_id plus a token_garantia. It is clearly separable from solicitar_codigo_garantia (which issues the code) and from the two downstream tools it names.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as a prerequisite for consultar_disponibilidad_reclamo and agendar_reclamo, so the agent knows where it sits in the flow. It does not explicitly say to call solicitar_codigo_garantia first if no SMS code exists, nor what to do when the code fails, leaving that step to inference.

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