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.