El Pujante — Subastas públicas de España

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently: it discloses data sources, that only active auctions are returned, that all filters are optional, the exact meaning of each listed filter, and even nuances like cargas_ratio_max 'filtro de riesgo; solo poda las subastas con cargas numéricas'. This goes well beyond basic behavior.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a bullet list of parameters, and a clarifying note about location filters. Each line adds value (examples, allowed values, constraints), and there is no repetition or fluff. The front-loading of purpose makes it immediately understandable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers a lot: purpose, parameter meanings, filter semantics, examples, and exclusions. However, it leaves out four parameters and does not describe the return format or any pagination/error behavior. It is mostly complete but not fully.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 11 of 15 parameters with examples and domain-specific detail (e.g., tipo_subasta origins, orden allowed values). However, it omits m2_min, m2_max, precio_min, and precio_max entirely; these are only present as schema titles, which are self-explanatory but still a gap in the description's coverage.

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's purpose: 'Busca inmuebles en subasta pública activa en España' (searches properties in active public auction in Spain), listing specific sources (BOE, AEAT, Seguridad Social). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comparar_inmuebles or detalle_inmueble, which focus on comparing or detailing properties rather than searching/filtering.

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 description provides clear usage context: all filters are optional, and it explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('No hay búsqueda por texto libre ni parámetro de ubicación genérico'). It clarifies how location filtering works via municipio/provincia/codigo_postal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to use them instead, such as comparar_inmuebles or inmuebles_similares.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only mentions the input constraint of 2-5 properties but does not clarify what 'fichas completas' means, whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled for invalid counts, or what the output format looks like. This is insufficient transparency for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 description is a single concise sentence of about 10 words that immediately conveys the core function and constraint. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is efficient for its content.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully understood. It does not explain what the complete profiles contain, how the comparison is presented, or any prerequisites or side effects. The tool's simplicity (one parameter) is the only mitigating factor, but a more complete description is needed for reliable tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'bien_ids' (array of integers) with zero description coverage, and the description does not reference this parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description neither specifies that the array must contain property IDs nor clarifies the relationship between the parameter and the 2-5 property constraint, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'comparar' (compare) and explicitly names the resource ('inmuebles') with a scope (2 to 5 properties). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detalle_inmueble' (singular) and 'inmuebles_similares' (similarity-based) by emphasizing side-by-side comparison of multiple properties.

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 description implies that the tool should be used when comparing 2-5 properties side-by-side, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of 'detalle_inmueble' or 'inmuebles_similares'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the calculation components and the parameter default, but it does not describe the return format, whether it performs any side effects, or any dependencies like obtaining ITP rates. It provides some behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes necessary details about components and the `precio` parameter. It is concise with no redundant words.

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 no output schema and two parameters, so the description should explain return values and prerequisites. It covers the algorithm but not the result structure or any dependencies (like external data for ITP). This is a moderate gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the `precio` parameter (hypothetical auction price, defaults to auction value) but does not directly describe `bien_id` (though it implies the property via 'inmueble'). This adds value but only partially addresses parameter meaning.

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's purpose: estimating total acquisition costs for a property (precio + ITP + notaría + registro + cargas). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buscar_inmuebles or detalle_inmueble by focusing on cost calculation rather than search or detail retrieval.

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 description implies usage context (when you want to estimate costs for a property) and explains the default behavior of `precio`, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but not explicit about exclusions or alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the kind of data returned (values, dates, charges, cadastral data, coordinates, URL), making clear this is a read/retrieval operation. It does not mention rate limits, errors, or side effects, but for a simple lookup tool, the disclosed content is sufficient and beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Ficha completa de un inmueble en subasta') and then efficiently lists the included data types. Every element earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a single-parameter detail-lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear and fairly comprehensive summary of what the tool returns (six distinct categories of data). It lacks error-handling or format details, but the given list is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. The sibling tools add context that this is the base detail lookup.

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?

The schema has one parameter (`bien_id`) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly stating the tool operates 'por su `bien_id`' (by its bien_id), giving semantic meaning to the parameter as the property identifier in the auction context. This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the raw schema definition.

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 provides a complete record of an auction property by its `bien_id`, listing specific content included (values, dates, charges, cadastral data, coordinates, official URL). This is a specific verb+resource that naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_inmuebles' (search) or 'comparar_inmuebles' (compare).

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 description implies usage: when you need full details for a single property, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention that other tools are for searching or comparing. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the matching algorithm (same postal code, or same use in same province with price ±20%), which is strong behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination/limit behavior, or any side effects, which are left unknown.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then specifies the criteria. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the core similarity logic but leaves out important user-facing behaviors such as the response structure and how limit is applied. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter names. It implies a reference to 'the given one' (likely bien_id), but does not explicitly connect it. The 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value 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 identifies the resource ('Subastas activas parecidas') and specifies the scope with concrete criteria (same postal code, or same use/province with price ±20%). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_inmuebles or comparar_inmuebles by focusing specifically on similarity to a given property.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when looking for similar active auctions to a given one) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use detalle_inmueble for exact details' or 'compare_inmuebles for side-by-side comparisons', leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool provides alerts and positive signals, and lists example alert types (cargas elevadas, deuda TGSS, vivienda habitual). However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or mention any permissions or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical usage instruction. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and gives practical usage guidance. It provides examples of the indicators but doesn't detail the output structure or error behavior, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, bien_id, but the description does not mention or explain it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by defining what bien_id refers to, but it does not. The parameter is only self-evident from its name and type, which is not sufficient.

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 provides risk and opportunity indicators for an auction, with specific examples of alerts and positive signals. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detalle_inmueble or costes_totales by focusing on auction risk assessment.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Consultar SIEMPRE antes de recomendar una subasta' (always consult before recommending an auction). This is clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar for explicit alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, mention pagination, or any access constraints. For a stats tool, this is somewhat adequate but leaves behavioral assumptions unstated.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key output dimensions without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter stats tool, the description covers the main metrics and grouping dimensions, giving the agent enough context about the return values even without an output schema. It could explicitly mention that it's an aggregate view, but the content is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description appropriately focuses on the output, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 provides global inventory statistics, specifying the exact dimensions (active auctions by source, province, type, average prices, enrichment coverage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle searches, comparisons, or detailed views.

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 description implies the tool is for aggregate inventory metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context from sibling names helps, but no direct usage guidance is given.

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