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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: an auth scope requirement and a plan-gated ordering rule (scoring for Pro+, fecha de fin otherwise). That material behavioral detail is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before prerequisites and ordering rules. Every clause (similarity definition, scope requirement, plan-based ordering) earns its place 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?

With an output schema present there's no need to describe return values, and both parameters are fully covered by the schema. Purpose, auth requirement, and plan-dependent ordering are all given; only explicit sibling routing is missing for a full score.

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 schema already documents both `id` and `limite`. The mention of `metodo` in the description describes ordering behavior, not an input parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (subastas similares to a given one) and even spells out the similarity dimensions (mismo tipo de inmueble, banda de precio, cercanía), so the agent understands exactly what is returned. It stops short of distinguishing itself from related siblings like recomendaciones or buscar_subastas.

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?

Surfaces a real prerequisite (requires account with scope `informes:read`) and plan-dependent behavior, which is implied usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over a sibling such as recomendaciones or buscar_subastas, nor any when-not condition.

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