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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable non-redundant behavior: authentication scope, plan requirement, and the specific error payload when access is insufficient. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the data product, metrics, and filter dimensions; the second covers access requirements and the failure mode. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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 report with an output schema, optional parameters, and annotation-covered safety, the description is largely complete: purpose, metrics, filters, auth, and lock behavior are all stated. Minor gaps are the absence of an explicit no-filter default behavior and lack of a named public alternative.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description conceptually mentions filtering by province and/or property type but adds no format, default, or combination rules 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 states that the tool provides market statistics for resolved auctions, specifically adjudication rate, real discount, and prices, segmented by province and/or property type. This clearly identifies the resource and the kind of data returned, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling `estadisticas_publicas`.

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 preconditions: an account with scope `informes:read` and a Pro plan, and it describes the `plan_required`/`locked` failure mode. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over `estadisticas_publicas` or other siblings, so the use-vs-alternative 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.