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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates returned fields (precio, administración, metros, habitaciones, baños, localidad, enlace) and explicitly discloses what is NOT returned (dirección exacta, datos de contacto) plus the reason and workaround. It omits any auth/rate-limit behavior for the tool itself, but the output-boundary disclosure is unusually strong.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and output scope first, then the negative constraints and their consequence. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant limitation (no address/contact) is surfaced rather than buried.

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 must and does enumerate return fields and exclusions, which is the key missing piece. It leaves minor gaps such as result ordering and behavior when localidad matches nothing, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limite, localidad, and precio_maximo. The description only echoes 'venta o arriendo' (operacion) and Bogotá (localidad) without adding format, units, or default semantics beyond the schema, so 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 verb and resource ('Busca inmuebles publicados en venta o arriendo en Bogotá') with clear scope covering operation type and geography. It does not name or contrast the sibling tools valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto / valor_del_suelo_por_localidad, so the differentiation is left to inference 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?

The description implies usage by describing what it returns and explicitly what it withholds, plus the workaround for contacting owners. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the land-value siblings, and no prerequisites or filtering guidance beyond the schema.

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