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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations cannot express: a paywall boundary and a `locked` response carrying `upgradeUrl` when a section is gated. It stops short of describing completeness of the returned data or caching.

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-loaded with the resource and the returned fields, then the access rules, then the gating behavior. Two dense sentences with essentially no filler; slightly compressed, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully flags the `locked`/`upgradeUrl` shape that an agent must anticipate. For a read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is complete enough; only sibling routing is unaddressed.

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 three parameters (id, url, boe_id) are already fully documented with patterns and formats. The description restates the identifier forms (10 chars, SUB-…) and notes that boe_id yields all lots, which mirrors rather than extends 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 (the public auction record) and enumerates the returned content: address, values, dates, result, lots and a citable summary. It also names the three accepted input forms. It never distinguishes itself from siblings such as analisis_subasta or buscar_subastas, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clearly frames the access context: the record is public and needs no account, while scoring, verdict, loads, ROI, valuation and participants require a Pro plan or above. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it does not say when to prefer this tool over the sibling search/analysis tools.

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