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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining that the data is published supply, not actual sales, and by detailing what each section computes, such as depreciation per year and km/automatic-transmission effects on valuation. It does not explain how sections are selected or returned, but the added context is substantial.

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 with the core purpose, then enumerates all seven sections in a single informative sentence. There is little redundancy, though the long list of sections could be more readable with line breaks or bullet-like structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return semantics, and it covers most sections well. However, it leaves 'rotation' unexplained and never clarifies whether the section parameter is required, whether it filters the report or selects one section, or how parameters apply to other sections. An agent can handle common cases but will have to guess about invocation details.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps budgetUsd to the budgets section and model to the depreciation section, and it lists all section enum values with brief meanings. This adds value beyond the schema, though budgetUsd's usage is only lightly described and the interaction between section and the other parameters is not made explicit.

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 identifies the tool as a Uruguayan used-car market report and distinguishes its data scope with 'oferta publicada, no ventas'. It lists seven specific sections, giving an agent a concrete idea of what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation relies on the section list rather than direct comparison.

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 provides clear context: this is a market report of published used-car supply, not sales. It also gives usage hints for two parameters: 'pasá budgetUsd' for budgets and 'pasá model' for depreciation. However, it does not mention alternatives like car_model_prices or search_used_cars, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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