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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the matching algorithm (same postal code, or same use in same province with price ±20%), which is strong behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination/limit behavior, or any side effects, which are left unknown.

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 purpose and then specifies the criteria. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the core similarity logic but leaves out important user-facing behaviors such as the response structure and how limit is applied. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameter names. It implies a reference to 'the given one' (likely bien_id), but does not explicitly connect it. The 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('Subastas activas parecidas') and specifies the scope with concrete criteria (same postal code, or same use/province with price ±20%). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_inmuebles or comparar_inmuebles by focusing specifically on similarity to a given property.

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 when to use the tool (when looking for similar active auctions to a given one) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use detalle_inmueble for exact details' or 'compare_inmuebles for side-by-side comparisons', leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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