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.