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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the ranking returns average price per firm and the hard cap of 45 firms (limite max) that the schema does not state. It does not describe auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then exclusions, then arguments; every clause carries information. The bilingual restatement is mildly redundant but aids the Spanish-market audience, so it is efficient without being maximally tight.

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?

Covers purpose, alternatives, parameter syntax with defaults, and the return content, which is sufficient given no output schema exists. Only marginal gaps remain, such as whether the ranking truncates to 'limite' firms or aggregates beyond it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds the max value of 45 for 'limite', which the schema omits, and restates defaults and the category examples concisely, so it earns a bump above baseline.

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 (ranking of consignatarias by head traded) with the exact market scope (MAG, Cañuelas) and the return content (average ARS/kg per firm). It also names the siblings it is not (livestock_prices, cattle_price_index), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 gives the selecting question ('qué firma operó más') and two named exclusions with their alternatives (no market price → livestock_prices; no daily index → cattle_price_index). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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