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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, yet the description layers substantial extra behavior: required auth scope, tier gating, the `unlock_required` error path, the MPP payment fallback, the guarantee that it never consumes quota or charges, and an AI-generated-text disclosure. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sections, then progressive detail on auth, tiers, payment and quota. It is dense and sentence-heavy but every clause (sections, `locked`, scopes, tiers, no-quota, AI disclosure) earns its place, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers prerequisites, tier-dependent behavior, the error/payment path and side-effect guarantees. For a gated read tool with payments involved, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 already documents both params at 100% coverage (baseline 3), but the description adds real semantic value: `basic`/`completo` are only served if already unlocked, otherwise `unlock_required` (plus a payment link) is returned, which the enum text alone does not convey.

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 (report) and resource (auction feasibility report), and enumerates the exact sections it returns plus the `locked` behavior, which is far more concrete than the bare title. It does not name sibling tools like analisis_subasta or subasta to draw an explicit boundary, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (verified account, `informes:read` scope, tier unlock state) and explains what happens when the condition fails, which is useful context. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus the sibling `analisis_subasta` or `subasta`, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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