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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: daily refresh cadence, attribution freshness fields, and the caveat that court auction notices lack price, description and closing date. However, the enumeration of returned record fields largely duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding behavioral insight.

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?

It is front-loaded with the scope and the primary use case before the follow-up routing and caveats. It is dense with useful information, but the long list of returned record fields is redundant given that an output schema exists, and trimming it would have made the description tighter.

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 16-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: data provenance, refresh cadence, known gaps in court notices, and filter-combination semantics. Nothing material is missing.

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 every parameter is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of semantics beyond the schema: all filters are optional and combine with AND, which clarifies how multiple filters interact.

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 and resource along with its precise scope: Spanish court auctions (BOE IV) and State/public-body sales (BOE V-B). It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings get_listing and get_facets, and even names get_listing as the follow-up step.

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?

Explicitly says to use it first for discovery and to call get_listing with an id for the full record, and it routes facet lookups to get_facets via the province parameter. It also states the negative case: coverage is Spain only and other countries return nothing.

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