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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value on other axes: it discloses data provenance (own survey of 15 provinces and 52 zones, cross-referencing appraisers, published series, cadastral records, and sale listings) and states there is no quota or cost ('GRATIS, sin cupo'). It does not detail coverage limits or how partial data is handled when a zone is unknown.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is padded with marketing questions, a 'GRATIS, sin cupo' pitch, a recitation of parameters already fully described in the schema (including an omission of qq_soja_ha_anio while listing the others), and then an English restatement. Several sentences do not earn their 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?

For a read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies what is otherwise missing: data provenance, geographic coverage, dual valuation methodology, and the fact that results come with a source. The one thing an agent still cannot resolve from the description is when to prefer this tool over the rent-calculation siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the zona/partido flexibility and the kg/ha/month canon. The description reinforces the two canon regimes (kg of steer per ha per month vs. quintales of soy per ha per year) but adds little beyond what the schema states, and it recites parameters rather than enriching them.

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 states a specific resource and output: value of Argentine farmland per hectare in USD, per province and zone, with observed range, typical lease in kg of steer, and source per data point. It notes the cattle-vs-agricultural distinction and each one's unit. It never names the closely related siblings (value_farmland_rent, calculate_farmland_rent) that an agent would have to choose between, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Use context is only implied through rhetorical questions ('¿Cuánto vale la hectárea en Corrientes?'), which sketch a scenario but give no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative. With overlapping siblings like value_farmland_rent and calculate_farmland_rent in the same namespace, the absence of any routing rule is a meaningful gap.

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