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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral output context by enumerating the types of alerts (cargas elevadas, deuda subsistente TGSS, vivienda habitual) and positive signals, which is valuable because there is no output schema. It does not describe return format or data source, but no contradiction exists.

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 one front-loaded sentence plus a short imperative, and every phrase carries distinct information: what the tool returns, examples of content, and when to use it. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, annotations cover the safety semantics and the description covers purpose, content categories, and a usage rule. However, the required bien_id parameter is left under-specified and there is no output schema to compensate. The description is useful but has a genuine gap around how to identify the target.

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 only required parameter, bien_id, is not explained in the description, and the schema provides 0% property-description coverage. The description talks about 'subasta' while the parameter is 'bien_id,' leaving the relationship between the property and the auction unresolved. With a single required parameter at 0% coverage, the description needed to explicitly state that bien_id identifies the property whose auction risk is being summarized.

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 that the tool provides risk and opportunity indicators for an auction, including concrete alert examples and positive signals. This distinguishes it from siblings like detalle_inmueble, which would cover general property detail, and from comparar_inmuebles or costes_totales. Although there is no explicit verb, the function is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit timing rule: 'Consultar SIEMPRE antes de recomendar una subasta,' which tells the agent when this tool must be invoked. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the mandatory-use context is clear enough for routing.

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