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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful detail beyond that: it enumerates return components (USD/ha, annual rent, product-denominated canon in kg novillo or quintales soja, yield %, payback years) and explains that canon is product-nominated to avoid devaluation. Data freshness or sourcing is left unstated, 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-loaded with the core computation and return values, followed by an Args block and an English summary. The bilingual repetition and the closing note about zona núcleo add some bulk, but the structure is logical and nearly every sentence earns its place.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly. All four parameters are documented, including optionality and defaults. The one gap relevant to correct use is that it does not clarify how it differs from near-duplicate rent tools.

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. However, the description adds real semantics by explaining that presupuesto_usd is distributed across hectares and by restating the aptitud options, going beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Specific verb and resource: annual yield on invested capital for Argentine farmland, broken down by zone and three aptitudes, with a clear list of computed outputs. It is easy to tell what the tool does. It stops short of 5 because there is no differentiation from overlapping siblings such as calculate_farmland_rent or value_farmland_rent.

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 offers a target persona ('Para el comprador del exterior que evalúa entrar'), which implies usage context, but never states when to choose this tool over calculate_farmland_rent or value_farmland_rent. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so selection remains inferential.

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