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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further: it discloses the computation formula, fallback data sources with specific identifiers (haciinfo000013, INMAG), the output values returned (mensual, anual, por ha/mes), and a legal disclaimer ('Estimación, no asesoramiento'). This is rich context beyond structured fields.

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 the formula, then fallbacks, then exclusions, then disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place; the English translation at the end is a minor redundancy but does not bloat significantly.

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?

Complete for a calculation tool with no output schema: the formula, fallback data sources, return values, and exclusions are all disclosed. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema itself (including the periodo enum and default). The description restates the formula driving parameter combination and clarifies the unit ambiguity (monthly vs annual) for kg_ha, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb (calcula) and resource (canon de arrendamiento de campo), gives the exact formula (kg novillo/ha/mes × hectáreas × precio), and explicitly excludes sibling uses ('Solo calcula: para consultar precios usá cattle_price_index o livestock_prices'). An agent can distinguish this from value_farmland, value_farmland_rent, and cattle_price_index without opening schemas.

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 names the alternatives (cattle_price_index, livestock_prices) and states the condition that selects them ('para consultar precios'). Also clarifies fallback behavior when precio_novillo is missing (MAG index, then INMAG). Nothing is left to inference.

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