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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule beyond that – experts on vacation are excluded from the results – but says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or what the rating/price fields represent.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one exclusion rule. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the low schema coverage it is compensating for.

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 does say what comes back (experts with valuation and price). It still leaves gaps an agent needs: how provincia and provincia_id interact, what the required tipo_vehiculo_id expects, and result ordering or pagination.

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 only 33%: provincia has a description warning not to invent ids, while provincia_id and the required tipo_vehiculo_id are undocumented. The description maps its two filters onto provincia/provincia_id and tipo_vehiculo_id conceptually, but does not explain the id-vs-name relationship or clarify anything the schema leaves blank.

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 concrete verb-and-resource: it returns the peritos (experts) covering a given province and vehicle type, together with their rating and price. That is enough to distinguish it from consultar_precio and buscar_servicio, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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: an agent can infer this is the lookup for finding available experts for a province/vehicle combination, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as buscar_servicio or consultar_precio.

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