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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is public, requires no account, and answers come from a human-written knowledge base rather than a language model. This tells the agent what kind of answer to expect, though it omits any limits on scope or length.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical example list is slightly long but useful for scoping.

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, return values need not be explained, and the single param is fully documented. The description plus annotations give an agent enough 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 parameter's description already includes an example ('qué es la cesión de remate'). The description's list of concept types is not tied to the parameter and adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Explica') and resource ('concepto de las subastas judiciales en España') and enumerates example domains (depósito, cargas, posesión, cesión de remate). It does not name a sibling, but the phrase 'desde la base de conocimiento de Subastech, redactada por personas' implicitly separates it from search/analysis 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?

It signals it is a public, no-account, non-LLM knowledge-base lookup, which implies the 'use this to understand a term' context. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like search, analisis_subasta, or informe, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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