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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that this is a proprietary indicator based on actual Mercado Agroganadero lot sales and returns a publish-ready quote, but it does not describe error behavior, data availability, or return structure.

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 Spanish definition is front-loaded and relevant, but the full English translation duplicates the same content and adds token overhead. The description is not bloated to the point of unuseable, but the bilingual repetition weakens conciseness.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description is largely complete: it explains the indicator, data source, weekly scope, default behavior, and that it returns a ready-to-publish quote. It could do more to identify its closest sibling alternative, but the core calling context is covered.

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?

The single optional fecha parameter is fully described in the schema, including YYYY-MM-DD format and default to the latest data. The description reinforces the weekly framing but does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific indicator: the weekly gap between the bottom and top deciles for the same cattle category/day from actual lot sales. It distinguishes itself from generic averages, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling price_dispersion_history.

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 implies usage for weekly dispersion analysis and says the result is a ready-to-publish quote, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives such as price_dispersion_history. The optional date default is covered by the schema.

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