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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by disclosing required auth scope, plan-tier gating, the exact degraded return ('locked' with 'upgradeUrl'), and that it consumes no quota. These are precisely the operational traits an agent needs that structured annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then requirements, then quota. Every clause carries information; front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly covers prerequisites, plan gating, and quota. Combined with full param documentation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (10-char public identifier), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter format, which is the correct baseline when coverage is complete.

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+resource: produces a viability verdict ('veredicto de viabilidad') plus defined axes (cargas, posesión, rentabilidad, titularidad) for an auction. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'subasta' (raw data) and 'informe' (report), so an agent knows it delivers an analytical judgment, not raw lookup.

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?

Provides concrete usage conditions: requires an account with scope `informes:read` and Pro plan or higher, and explains the fallback behavior for Radar/Starter (`locked` with `upgradeUrl`). It doesn't explicitly name when to prefer this over 'informe'/'subasta', but the gating conditions make applicability clear.

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