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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the org-wide scope (no identifiers required) and the business rule that equality is not a violation. It does not describe output shape, sort order, or currency handling, so the added context is useful but modest.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and condition, followed by the boundary rule and the no-identifier note. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries decision-relevant 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter, closed-world tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the definition of a violation, and the absence of required identifiers. The only real gap is that it does not sketch what a returned violation entry contains (product, retailer, price vs MAP), which matters somewhat given there is 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 description coverage is 100% and the single thresholdPercentage parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 0 = any price under MAP semantics. The description's clarification that matching MAP is not a violation reinforces that parameter's behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (publicaciones de tu organización) and a precise condition (por debajo del MAP), not just a restated title. It even disambiguates the boundary case (igualar el MAP no es violación). It does not name or contrast any sibling, so an agent must infer that this is the MAP-pricing counterpart to the price-comparison tools.

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?

'No necesita identificadores' tells the agent the call is parameterless in spirit and needs no product/retailer scoping, which is a real usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, nor a pointer to radar_get_product_prices or radar_compare_retailer_prices for the non-violation case.

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