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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is public, requires no account, uses a human-curated knowledge base, and explicitly states that no language model is involved. This helps set accurate expectations about how results are generated.

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 one well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by useful clarifying details. Every clause adds value: scope, examples, source, access, and generation behavior.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, a read-only annotation profile, and an output schema. The description and schema together cover the tool's purpose, usage, access constraints, and behavioral expectations. Nothing essential is missing.

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 one parameter 'pregunta' is already described with an example. The description repeats some example concepts but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the verb ('Explica') and the resource ('un concepto de las subastas judiciales en España'), with concrete examples. The phrase 'desde la base de conocimiento de Subastech, redactada por personas' distinguishes it from search, analysis, and report tools.

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 gives clear context: use it for conceptual questions about Spanish judicial auctions, e.g., 'depósito', 'cargas', 'cesión de remate'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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