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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements and plan-dependent sorting behavior. The `metodo: scoring`/`metodo: publico` parenthetical is slightly confusing because `metodo` is not present in the input schema, but the behavior itself is transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose and add only high-value operational details. There is 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?

The tool has an output schema and safe annotations, so the description covers the main context: purpose, criteria, auth, and ordering. However, it leaves `limite` undocumented and introduces `metodo` without a matching schema property, creating an incomplete picture for a caller.

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?

Only `id` is described in the schema (50% coverage), so the description needed to compensate, but it never explains `limite` and instead references a `metodo` value that does not appear in the input schema. This does not add meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema.

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 auctions similar to a given one, with concrete similarity criteria (same property type, price band, proximity). It lacks an explicit verb but is unambiguous and distinguishable from generic search or recommendation tools.

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 use case is implied by 'a una dada' and the criteria, and the description adds explicit preconditions: account with scope informes:read and plan-dependent ordering. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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