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

The description states that the tool 'deja tu búsqueda activa' and sends alerts, implying a side effect (creating a subscription or ongoing notification). This contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true, which asserts no modifications. The description does not clarify the apparent write behavior.

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 description is well-structured, starting with an example, then explaining behavior, then listing parameters. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no redundant 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?

The description covers the core functionality (returning matches and setting up alerts) and mentions the output fields (fecha, consignataria, lugar, link). However, it omits details on alert management (e.g., how to unsubscribe) and error handling, which would be useful given no output 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that 'categoria' accepts synonyms and that at least one of 'email' or 'webhook_url' is required (which is not enforced by the schema). This enriches the schema definitions.

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 states that the tool returns matching upcoming auctions and sets up alerts for new matches, using a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_remates' by combining search with persistent alerting.

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 provides a concrete usage example and explains the dual behavior (immediate results + alerts). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context makes it clear for buyer search and alerts.

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