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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about Spanish-language queries requiring accents, though it does not discuss ranking, result volume, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it establishes the guide corpus, lists relevant question types, names the follow-up tool, and ends with the accent rule. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation guidance.

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, annotations cover safety and openness, and the description supplies the topic scope, intended question types, next-step tool, and language-query nuance. Nothing essential for selecting or calling this tool appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already explains query keyword guidance and the language enum. The description adds meaningful query semantics by noting that Spanish words need accents, with examples like tributación and tasación, compensating for the remaining coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching PropertyList's Spain property guides. It also names concrete covered topics (ITP, IBI, NIE, buying process, laws, area guides), making it easy to distinguish from generic property search siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for how-to, cost, and legal questions, then call get_guide for the page. That gives both the appropriate use case and the follow-up alternative, leaving little to inference.

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