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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: no authentication is required, property-type values are exact filter values, and municipality search results use `provincia:municipio` keys. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short, dense, and front-loaded with the main outputs. Every sentence adds information: what data is available, exact filter values, the public/no-account nature, and the explicit exclusion of market statistics. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 statistics tool with two optional parameters, a complete output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers authentication requirements, scope, exact filter hints, and the key alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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 for both parameters is 100%, including the enum for `estado` and the minimum-length requirement for `municipio_q`, so the schema already handles parameter documentation. The description adds some contextual value, such as the `provincia:municipio` key format, but this mostly describes output behavior rather than deepening the meaning of the input parameters themselves.

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 enumerates what the tool returns: catalog totals, provinces with active/historical auctions, property-type values to use as filters, and municipality search results. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `mercado` by explicitly excluding market statistics. This is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what it offers.

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 description states that the tool is public and requires no account, which is a clear precondition for use. It also explicitly says what it does NOT include and routes the user to `mercado` for market statistics, giving an explicit alternative and when-not-to-use condition.

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