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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the kind of data returned (values, dates, charges, cadastral data, coordinates, URL), making clear this is a read/retrieval operation. It does not mention rate limits, errors, or side effects, but for a simple lookup tool, the disclosed content is sufficient and beyond what the schema alone provides.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Ficha completa de un inmueble en subasta') and then efficiently lists the included data types. Every element earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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 single-parameter detail-lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear and fairly comprehensive summary of what the tool returns (six distinct categories of data). It lacks error-handling or format details, but the given list is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. The sibling tools add context that this is the base detail lookup.

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 schema has one parameter (`bien_id`) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly stating the tool operates 'por su `bien_id`' (by its bien_id), giving semantic meaning to the parameter as the property identifier in the auction context. This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the raw schema definition.

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 provides a complete record of an auction property by its `bien_id`, listing specific content included (values, dates, charges, cadastral data, coordinates, official URL). This is a specific verb+resource that naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buscar_inmuebles' (search) or 'comparar_inmuebles' (compare).

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: when you need full details for a single property, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention that other tools are for searching or comparing. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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