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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with an explicit no-side-effects statement ('no crea ninguna solicitud ni avisa a nadie'). It also discloses the key caveat that the result is orientativo and excludes finish, color and transport costs — real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though nothing on auth, limits or output format.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then equivalence to the web table, then the no-side-effects guarantee, then the caveat. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return components (unit without customization, unit with marking, totals, published tiers). Combined with the read-only annotation and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the exact response shape is only described in prose.

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% and the schema already documents masterCode, quantity (with the 25-unit minimum) and positions. The description adds only indirect meaning, linking 'unitario con marcaje' to the marking parameter. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the 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 (calcular precio orientativo) plus the scope: unit price without customization, unit price with marking, totals and published tiers, for a catalog product at a given quantity. It also separates itself from pedir_presupuesto by declaring it creates no solicitud, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the context of use (same calculation as the price table on the product page) and implicitly routes quoting/ordering intent elsewhere by stating 'No crea ninguna solicitud ni avisa a nadie'. It also warns that the definitive amount depends on finish, color and shipping, which tells the agent when the figure is not binding. It never names a sibling explicitly as an alternative.

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