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

Annotations already establish safe read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that the view is global and aggregate, but provides no deeper behavioral context such as freshness, units, or scope caveats.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's whole value proposition without filler. Every phrase names a distinct output category.

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 param-free aggregate tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists all returned dimensions. Minor gaps such as currency, units, or response shape keep it from a 5.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter ambiguity and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description still helps by enumerating what dimensions the stats cover, so the agent knows what the no-arg call returns.

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 names a concrete deliverable: global inventory figures with explicit breakdowns (active auctions by source/province/type, average prices, enrichment coverage). This content profile separates it from siblings like detalle_inmueble or costes_totales.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer to call it when it needs aggregate inventory statistics. The description never states when not to use it or names alternatives, so routing versus costes_totales or resumen_riesgo is left to the agent.

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