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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds quota behavior (3 free alerts per origin, unlimited with an Enterprise Bearer key or api_key param) and what is returned (id and price), which is useful beyond the structured fields. However it omits what happens on duplicate alerts, how to update or delete an alert, and whether webhook delivery is retried.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: trigger, delivery, sibling positioning, pricing/quota, then params. The trailing bilingual restatement repeats the opening sentence in English, which is defensible for cross-language routing but is redundant padding for an agent reading the Spanish text.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return payload (id and price), the auth model, the quota, and the delivery semantics, which is enough for an agent to call this correctly. Nothing essential to invocation 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 already 83%, yet the description adds real meaning: 'inmag' is a daily index while the other categories are weekly, umbral is in ARS/kg en pie, direccion defaults to above, and at least one of email/webhook_url is required – a cross-field constraint the schema does not encode. It does not explain the api_key/auth interaction beyond naming it as an alternative to the Bearer header.

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 (create a price alert) plus the trigger condition (price of a category crosses a threshold) and the delivery channels. It also positions itself among siblings by declaring it is one of only three tools that write data, alongside cattle_buying_request and market_match.

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 routes the agent: this tool writes, 'el resto lee', so read queries go elsewhere. It also disambiguates the delivery channel ('para una persona usá email', webhook only for integrations) and states the free-tier ceiling (3 active alerts per origin) versus Enterprise keys.

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