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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value the annotations do not: the accent-sensitivity of Spanish queries and the search-then-fetch workflow with get_guide.

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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded: scope first, then usage plus the alternative, then the accent caveat. The topic enumeration is dense but directly defines search coverage, so every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies what is genuinely missing: scope, when-to-use, the get_guide follow-up, and the accent requirement.

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 documents query and language but not limit (67% coverage). The description compensates by adding a real semantic constraint on the query parameter — Spanish terms must carry accents or they will not match — which goes beyond the schema's keyword-count guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (PropertyList's guides), and enumerates the actual scope: Spanish taxes (ITP, IBI, non-resident income tax), NIE, buying process, laws, area guides. It is clearly distinguishable from get_guide, which it names as the follow-up.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('how-to, cost and legal questions') and what to do next ('then call get_guide for the page'). It also flags a practical usage precondition: Spanish terms need accents to match (tributación, tasación).

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