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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world. The description adds real value on top: the returned value is authoritative and matches the website exactly, so the agent must not round or recompute it. It omits what happens on invalid province/vehicle inputs, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences with the price definition front-loaded and the 'don't recompute' constraint following. Efficient and well-ordered, with 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 read-only query with no output schema, the description implies a single numeric return ('el mismo número que enseña la web') and covers the core inputs, but leaves several parameters unexplained and gives no error/fallback behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 33% (6 params, 2 documented inline), so the description must compensate. It identifies the three inputs that drive the price (vehicle, reports, province), which helps, but says nothing about ciudad_id or token_perito, leaving gaps in both sources.

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 states a specific resource and result: the price of the revisión for a given vehicle, reports, and province. It distinguishes the operation from transactional siblings like crear_reserva or estado_reserva, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'no lo calcules tú ni lo redondees' instruction strongly nudges the agent to call the tool for prices rather than deriving them, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to a sibling. This is a minimum-viable signal, not real guidance.

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