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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns matching auctions right away, leaves the search active, sends email or webhook alerts for new matches, and is free. It does not cover permission or rate-limit behavior, but that is not critical given the annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with a concrete example and outcome, then compactly lists key parameters and behavior. It is efficient overall, though the Spanish and English versions partially duplicate content rather than adding new information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the immediate return fields, the persistent search behavior, notification channels, cost, and matching logic. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema, including that categoria accepts synonyms and that email and/or webhook_url must include at least one for alerts. It omits contacto_para_operar, but that parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: posting a cattle buying request in Argentina and receiving matching upcoming auctions immediately plus ongoing alerts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from auction-listing siblings by emphasizing request creation, matching, and active notifications rather than browsing.

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 example "Quiero comprar 300 terneros en Corrientes" makes the intended use clear, and the description explains the immediate-match plus alert workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as upcoming_auctions or create_price_alert, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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