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.