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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the data is current ('vigentes') and authoritative ('fuente de verdad'), though it does not discuss error behavior or response shape.

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 a single front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Datos vigentes' and then listing the relevant domains. It is dense but every listed domain earns its place; structure could be slightly improved with separators or bullets, but there is no filler.

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 parameterless, read-only lookup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the data domains and authoritative status. It does not describe the response structure, but no output schema exists and the enumeration gives an agent enough to know what will be returned.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no schema gaps need compensation.

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 the specific resource (Portal Haras project data) and enumerates the exact domains covered: units, surfaces, price per m², projected rent, financing, delivery, location, environment, eligible sectors, and developer. This is clearly distinct from Contact, Page, Press, and Content-list tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Es la fuente de verdad para cualquier cifra' gives a clear usage rule: use this tool for project figures and factual project data. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name sibling tools, but the intended context is clear.

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