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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned metrics (mediana, rango del 80% central, puesto relativo, diferencia porcentual vs. la ciudad) and the data source (catastro distrital). It does not address auth requirements, data freshness/period, or whether the values are strictly read-only, leaving modest gaps for a fully un-annotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource and scope come first, followed by the returned metrics and the default behavior. It is dense but every clause adds information, with only minor overload from the metric enumeration.

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 read-only aggregate lookup with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (median, 80% range, ranking, city-relative difference) and the no-argument fallback, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Missing details like cadastral data vintage or units beyond m² are minor.

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%, so the single parameter and its optionality/example values are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the fact that the localities number 20 and restates the default-to-all behavior, so it delivers baseline value rather than new parameter semantics.

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 ('devuelve') and a precisely scoped resource: reference m² value of SUELO (land, not construction) per locality in Bogotá. The parenthetical disambiguation 'terreno, no construcción' and the locality scope make it clearly separable from valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto and buscar_inmuebles.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition for the optional parameter ('Si no se da localidad, devuelve las 20'), which tells the agent both the single-locality and aggregate modes. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when one should be preferred over valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto, so it falls 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.