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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the auth requirement (scope `cuenta:read`) and the tier-dependent ranking algorithm, which changes the meaning of the returned order. Doesn't state rate limits or full return shape, but output schema exists.

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-loads the resource and anchoring, then tacks on auth and plan-dependent behavior efficiently. Three dense sentences 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?

Covers what an agent needs for a no-param, read-only recommendation endpoint: personalization, auth scope, and algorithm variance by plan. An output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of (tipo, precio, provincias) hints at internal ranking signals rather than inputs, which is useful framing for a no-arg tool.

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+resource: recommended auctions personalized to the user's history, with the fields used (tipo, precio, provincias), and anchors it to the known web feature «para ti». This distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_subastas and similares.

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 context: personalized recommendations requiring an account, with a distinct behavior difference between Pro+ (scoring ranking) and non-Pro (profile + end-date ordering). No explicit 'use X instead of Y', but the personalization requirement effectively steers agents away from it as a generic search.

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