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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns with these. It adds context by specifying the type of information returned and that it is 'publica'. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value: it states the purpose, lists fields, gives usage requirement, and excludes unrelated info. Highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the types of information returned (ubicacion, como visitarlo, rubros permitidos, etc.) and explicitly states what is excluded. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, this is complete enough.

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%, with the parameter already described in the schema as the slug from listar_proyectos. The description reinforces this by mentioning it again but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('devuelve'), the resource ('informacion comercial publica de un proyecto especifico de EcoPlaza'), and lists specific fields. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting what it does NOT include (precios, TEA, cuotas), setting it apart from tools like consultar_precios_o_financiamiento.

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 provides a clear precondition: requires the project slug, and directs users to use listar_proyectos to obtain it. It also mentions excluded information, implying alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings beyond that exclusion.

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