inapi_cease_and_desist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that profile: it does not say what the tool returns (draft text? file? downloadable document?), whether it persists anything, or what inputs it refuses; the legal citations are part of the purpose statement, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the artifact and wastes no words. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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, the description is the only place the return value could be described, and it says nothing about the form or format of the generated letter or whether it is stored. For a generation tool whose whole value is the produced document, that is a meaningful gap.

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% with all four required parameters individually documented, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no syntax, format or content guidance beyond the schema (e.g., how detailed "hechos_infraccion" should be), 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Redacta") and a specific artifact ("carta formal de Cese y Desistimiento") plus the two statutory grounds (Ley 19.039 for marca, Ley 17.336 for propiedad intelectual). An agent can tell it apart from the similarly named sibling inapi_evaluar_marca (which evaluates rather than drafts), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that a registered mark or a documented infringement is needed), and no indication of when a cease-and-desist is inappropriate. The agent must infer all routing from the one-line purpose.

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