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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by listing what is included in the estimate and explaining that `precio` defaults to the subasta value. 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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the full list of cost components, and the second clarifies the key parameter behavior. Every clause contributes value.

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 read-only calculator tool backed by strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and estimation scope. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or an explicit statement of the return format/currency, but the information provided is sufficient for selecting and calling the tool 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 for missing parameter documentation. It clearly explains `precio` as the hypothetical remate and its default behavior, but it does not explain the required `bien_id`, leaving that parameter to be inferred from context.

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 names a specific operation—estimating the real cost of adjudicating a property—and breaks down the cost components (precio + ITP + notaría + registro + cargas subrogables). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like detalle_inmueble or resumen_riesgo, which address different questions.

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 intended use case is implied: whenever an agent needs the total acquisition cost of a property including taxes and fees. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this tool over the siblings, nor any exclusions, so the agent must infer the context.

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