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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates returned fields (precio_base, tasas, precio_con_tasas, summary), explains the tax semantics ('sin tasas de pago', 0 = no cobra), coupon handling, and that summary embeds price+store as a link. It stops short on error behavior, permissions, or freshness guarantees, but discloses unusually rich return behavior.

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 bloated with prescriptive output-formatting rules (how to quote prices, where to place links, when to say 'sin tasas') that inflate length relative to the core selection signal. Several of these sentences are essentially templates rather than tool definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return payload (the three price fields, coupon, and summary). Coverage is strong for a read tool, though it omits what happens for unknown/invalid game ids or empty results.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'game' and 'lang'. The description adds no format or syntax detail for either parameter (e.g. what a valid slug looks like), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource clearly: it returns a game's best price along with format (key/cuenta/gift), store, purchase link and timing context. An agent can tell it fetches pricing, but the description never contrasts it with siblings like get_deals or get_price_history, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

Explicit trigger is given: 'Usalo cuando pregunten donde comprar, cuanto cuesta o si conviene esperar.' That is a clear when-to-use statement. It offers no when-not-use or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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