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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost structure (free with cap, paid otherwise), payment mechanism (x402), and daily limit per origin. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, output, pricing, and optional parameters. It could be split into shorter sentences for better scannability, but it is not verbose and includes only essential 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (total ARS, USD blue and official, per-head value, dated source). It also covers input semantics, cost, and reference link. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'kg_promedio' is optional and defaults to typical weight per category, and 'provincia' is optional but does not change the national reference. This is helpful beyond the schema's dry 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 values a herd of livestock using official MAG prices, returning total value in ARS and USD, per-head value, and a dated source. The verb 'valúa' and resource 'tropa' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like 'valuar_arrendamiento_campo' which values leases.

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 mentions free usage with a daily quota and paid usage otherwise, giving context for when to use. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings, so the lack of explicit exclusion is acceptable.

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