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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what happens when an own offer is no longer available (it flags it and suggests similar offers) and the differing payload for own vs. external offers.

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?

The Spanish text is front-loaded and each clause earns its place by covering both id forms and the unavailable-offer fallback. The appended English sentence is largely a verbatim translation, which adds length without new information, though it aids multilingual selection.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values or safety; it still covers both id variants, the fallback path for stale offers, and the public/private data distinction. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the numeric vs. «ext-N» id convention and the idioma enum. The description restates the id duality without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 precise verb and resource — returns the full record of an own offer by numeric id or the public summary of an external offer by «ext-N» id — and enumerates the fields returned for each case. It never names the sibling buscar_ofertas or explicitly contrasts itself with it, so an agent must infer the search-vs-detail split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id format («tal como lo devuelve buscar_ofertas» in the schema) signals this is a follow-up detail call after a search. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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