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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It emphasizes that the inquiry is REAL (not a test/simulation) and explains that the realtor receives the lead and contacts the customer. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like customer data being shared with a third party, rate limits, or whether multiple requests can be sent. The 'REAL' emphasis is helpful, but more behavioral detail (e.g., does it create a lead in a CRM, is it a one-way communication?) would improve transparency.

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?

The description is compact: two bilingual sentences (ES and EN) that front-load the core purpose and workflow. Every phrase adds value, including the emphasis on REAL and the outcome (realtor contacts customer). No filler or repetition.

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 lead-generation tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and the high-level process. It lacks details on what happens after submission (e.g., no confirmation response, no guarantee of visit) and doesn't discuss idempotency or retries. However, the tool is relatively straightforward: submit a lead form. Given schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention that the lead is not a booking confirmation.

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 75%, so most parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining the overall purpose of the fields (property of interest, budget, move-in date, pets) and clarifies that the lead goes to the realtor. However, it doesn't explain all parameters; for instance, 'mensaje' and 'habitaciones' are not described in the tool description, leaving some gaps. Overall, it adds enough semantic context to aid selection and invocation.

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 clearly states the tool sends a REAL inquiry to a real-estate business with specific fields (property, budget, move-in date, pets), and explains the workflow (realtor receives lead and contacts customer). This is a specific verb+resource+outcome and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reservar_cita or solicitar_estimado.

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?

The description indicates when to use it: when a customer wants to express interest in a property and have the realtor contact them to arrange a visit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of real-estate inquiry vs appointment booking is implied. It could be more explicit about not using it for booking a specific time slot (use reservar_cita) but the intent is clear.

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