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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it uses the user's historical type/price/province data, requires a specific scope, and changes ranking logic depending on account plan. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first explains what the tool provides, the second states the auth requirement, and the third clarifies plan-dependent ranking behavior. The description 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 no parameters, a rich output schema present, and annotations covering safety hints, the description covers the remaining essentials: account requirement, scope, data sources, and plan-dependent behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 clearly states the tool returns recommended auctions based on user history (type, price, provinces), and the 'para ti' block analogy makes the purpose immediately recognizable. This distinguishes it from search and similar-item sibling tools by emphasizing personalization from the user's own history.

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 usage context: an authenticated account is required, the `cuenta:read` scope is needed, and behavior depends on plan tier (Pro or higher uses scoring ranking; otherwise profile-based ranking by end date). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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