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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: price (20 €) with retention semantics, scope requirement, the not_orderable error condition, the returned pedido_id/url/paymentLink and the guarantee that payment never completes server-side, the pedido_existente idempotency response, and a 20/day rate limit. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense passage that front-loads the action, then conditions, returns, idempotency and limits in logical order. Every sentence carries information, though it is slightly packed for one paragraph.

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?

Despite an output schema already covering returns, the description still supplies prerequisites, error codes, payment flow, idempotency, and rate limits, leaving no operational gap for a mutation tool with these annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the `id` parameter's meaning (public auction identifier, 10 chars) is already documented in the schema. The description references CRU/IDUFIR requirements but adds no further detail about the id format beyond what the schema provides – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Inicia el pedido de la nota simple registral de una subasta'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like nota_simple_estado (status) and notas_simples_listar (listing). An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 concrete preconditions (verified account with scope `notas:write`, auction must have CRU/IDUFIR) and the failure mode (`not_orderable`), plus idempotency behavior. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for checking an existing order's status, so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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