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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It discloses the types of information returned (features, amenities, photos, etc.) and that descriptions are localized. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid id_casa), response size, or whether photos are URLs or embedded data. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence in Spanish that clearly states the action, object, and scope. Every element (characteristics, amenities, location, prices, photos, language) earns its place, and there is no redundant fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the response content by listing key categories. It doesn't specify the exact structure or failure modes, but for a property-details retrieval tool, this is adequate. The lack of output schema raises the importance of the description, which covers the main aspects of expected return data.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including descriptions for id_casa and idioma, so runtime parameter semantics are already well-defined. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond 'idioma solicitado', which is essentially restating the idioma parameter. Thus, parameter semantics depend fully on the schema, yielding a baseline score.

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 specifies a clear action ('obtiene información completa') on a specific resource ('propiedad específica') and enumerates content categories (características, amenidades, precios, fotos, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like listar_propiedades (listing) and calcular_precio_estancia (pricing).

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 makes it evident this tool is for retrieving rich details of a single property, implying use when a specific property's full information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but context signals with sibling names reinforce differentiation. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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