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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that no key is required and that prices are in MXN with IVA included, but it does not describe the return shape, freshness, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The core scope (current prices, MXN, IVA included) is front-loaded, and the auth note follows without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter tool the description is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema to compensate for the missing return-value details. An agent knows it will receive price data but not the format or scope of the table, so the description is adequate with a clear gap.

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 parameter documentation is trivially complete in the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource: a current price table in MXN with IVA included. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as consultar_ley or catalogo_servicios, so it misses the top score.

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 'No requiere llave' gives useful context that no authentication is needed, which helps an agent decide it can call the tool without secrets. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling catalog/consult tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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