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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: payment is never completed from this tool, the order is idempotent and returns `pedido_existente`, there is a 20-property daily limit, and billing only happens with a verified PDF. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to set expectations correctly.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: action, price and billing, prerequisites, return values, payment behavior, idempotency, and daily cap. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

With a single parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and read/write behavior, the description adds all the missing operational context: prerequisites, payment flow, failure conditions, and limits. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, `id`, with its type, pattern, and meaning. The description adds context about the auction and CRU/IDUFIR requirements but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inicia el pedido de la nota simple registral de una subasta.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like nota_simple_estado or notas_simples_listar, which handle status or listing rather than initiating an order.

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 clearly states prerequisites: a verified account with scope `notas:write` and the subasta having CRU/IDUFIR, with `not_orderable` as the failure signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives by tool name, but it gives enough context for an agent to decide when this action is valid.

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