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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it supplies a decisive behavioral warning: pricing is under validation, displayPrice is intentionally empty, and the agent must not invent amounts. This is genuinely useful beyond the tool name and schema. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but 'consulta' signals a read operation and the disclosed pricing caveat is the main risk.

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?

Two short sentences, the first states primary purpose and the second delivers a critical warning; no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Information is front-loaded enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only catalog lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the most important output quirk (displayPrice). The schema fills in parameter enums/defaults, and the warning prevents a common hallucination. Missing details are minor (exact response shape, lang effect).

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?

The schema already describes the `product` parameter and lists enums for both parameters; the description adds no input-parameter meaning. It references 'un producto' but not the `lang` parameter or the omission behavior, so at 50% schema coverage there remains a small gap. The pricing caveat concerns an output field, not parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Consulta los planes disponibles de un producto Alfabot para colegios', clearly identifying the action and the resource. The sibling tools are about meetings/availability, so the plan-catalog scope is distinct. The optional-product behavior in the schema reinforces the scope without contradicting it.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving available school-product plans but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions alternative tools. No exclusions or sequencing are provided, so an agent must infer fit from the purpose alone.

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