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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return shape (name, locality/province, category, CUIT, one contact channel, profile URL) and the result limits (default 8, max 25), plus an explicit scope boundary that it does not return market activity. No auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it short of 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 resource and its dimensions, then return fields, then the exclusion and alternative. Dense but each sentence carries information; the trailing [EN] gloss is partly redundant with the Spanish text, which is the only mild waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers the cap on results and the no-term case. It stops short of describing what happens on zero matches or how far beyond 25 results the agent can page, which a directory tool of this size could reasonably state.

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, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the hard cap of 25 on `limite` (the schema only mentions the default of 8) and the OR relationship between `query` and `provincia`. The English gloss also reframes `query` as including tax ID (CUIT).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (directory lookup of consignatarias/casas de remate de hacienda) and lists the searchable axes (nombre, razón social, localidad). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling that covers market activity data, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States the condition that makes a call valid with no search term ("Alcanza con el nombre O con la provincia") and gives a concrete example query. It also gives a clear when-NOT-to-use plus the named alternative (broker_activity_ranking for cabezas/precio).

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