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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by revealing the methodology (own survey crossing appraisers, published series, cadastre, sale ads), the distinction between livestock and agricultural valuation in different currencies, the inclusion of sources for each data point, and the free/no-quota policy. This rich behavioral context adds significant value without contradicting the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints.

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 long but every sentence contributes value: examples, core function, methodology, currency distinction, and free status. It is front-loaded with questions and ends with a param list. However, the param list omits qq_soja_ha_anio, which creates a structural inconsistency, and the flow could be slightly more organized. Overall, it's efficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (value per hectare, range, typical rental in kg/novillo, sources) and covers the main use cases. It also clarifies optional parameters' effects. The main gap is the incomplete param enumeration (missing qq_soja_ha_anio), though the prose mentions the agricultural unit concept. Overall, it is quite complete for a valuation tool with 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does add meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two valuation currencies ('el ganadero en kg de novillo por ha por mes, el agrícola en quintales de soja por ha por año') and how optional parameters like hectareas affect the output. However, it omits the explicit parameter name qq_soja_ha_anio from the param list, even though the concept is described, so it doesn't fully compensate for that gap.

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 the tool's purpose: valuing land in dollars per hectare with detailed context like typical rental and source. It uses specific verbs and examples ('¿Cuánto vale la hectárea en Corrientes?'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like valuar_arrendamiento_campo, even though it covers rental information too, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 clear usage context through example questions, specifies the geographic coverage (15 provincias, 52 zonas), and notes it's free and without quota. It also lists required and optional parameters with practical hints (e.g., 'acepta el nombre de la zona o el partido'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, so exclusions are absent.

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