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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: zero quota consumption, no /verify receipt, and hard rejection of non-sample IDs. It does not describe the shape or size of the returned analysis, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core promise ('análisis COMPLETO') front-loaded, followed by the caveats and the rejection rule. The capitalization and em-dash clause make it slightly harder to parse, but there is no wasted content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what sections the report contains and the key operational caveats. The absence of any detail about the returned structure is acceptable given the enumerated field list.

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% and the schema already documents canonical_id as a hotel_canonical uuid. The description adds real meaning beyond that by declaring the parameter must resolve to the single demo sample asset or the call is refused.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates the contents of the report (valuation, market metrics, underwriting), which lets an agent distinguish it from the narrower siblings get_asset, get_compset, and get_market. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the field list rather than stated.

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?

It gives a hard usage constraint — only the demo sample asset is accepted, any other canonical_id is rejected — and clarifies that no /verify receipt and no commercial quota are involved. It does not state when to prefer this over the sibling tools, so the routing guidance is implicit.

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