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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 2-to-5 item constraint and the fact that it returns complete property sheets, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention edge cases such as invalid counts or response format, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, short sentence with no filler. The key constraint (2 to 5 properties) and the purpose (side-by-side comparison) are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the count constraint adequately. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation and does not describe behavior for out-of-range input, which leaves some gaps. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 for the undocumented bien_ids parameter. It partially does so by indicating the array should contain 2 to 5 properties, but it does not explain that bien_ids are property identifiers or how to obtain them. The schema's title 'Bien Ids' and array-of-integers type are self-explanatory, so the main added value is the count constraint.

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 that the tool returns complete property cards for 2 to 5 properties for side-by-side comparison. This conveys the operation and resource, and the comparison framing differentiates it from single-property tools like detalle_inmueble. The main clause lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implied by the '2 a 5 inmuebles' constraint and the comparison purpose, which suggests using it when a user wants to compare multiple specific properties. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over inmuebles_similares or detalle_inmueble, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing.

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