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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scoping context (by `bien_id`, complete record) but no additional behavioral traits such as response envelope, error cases, or rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the key parameter, and the result contents. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields or annotation values.

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?

With one required parameter, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect: the key and the main content categories. It could add response envelope or error details, but for a simple read-only lookup these are not critical.

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 carry the semantic meaning. It explains that `bien_id` is the property identifier used to select the record, which is meaningful beyond the raw schema type. For a single obvious required parameter, this is sufficient.

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 resource and action ('Ficha completa de un inmueble en subasta') and identifies `bien_id` as the selector. The listed contents (valores, fechas, cargas, datos catastrales, coordenadas, URL oficial) clearly distinguish it from the search, comparison, risk, and stats siblings.

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 is implied clearly: call this to get the full record for a specific property by its ID. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like buscar_inmuebles or comparar_inmuebles as better fits for other needs.

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