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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true)Skip. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it uncovers that the estimate is based on comparable ads from distinct advertiserschers, that askingPrice triggers a percentile and over/under median calculation, and that 'Casas: superficie construida' clarifies the area basis for houses. This adds context without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences: what it does, when to use it, and one critical areaBasis caveat. The main action is front-loadedabb, no redundant phrasing, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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 tool with no output schema and 10 parameters, the description gives enough orientation at a high level: inputs, methodology, optional askingPrice output, and use case. It does not provide output structure or examples, but the core information an agent needs to decide and call the tool is present.

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 40%, so the description carries part of the burden. It clarifies askingPrice semantics (optional price to be located in the distribution) and the 'Casas: superficie construida' rule, which supplements areaBasis. However, it does not explain several parameters such as parkingSpaces, currency defaults, or neighborhood syntax, so the compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estima el alquiler justo de una vivienda concreta', listing the key property inputs. It goes beyond a generic label by specifying methodology (comparable listings from different advertisers) and the optional askingPrice percentile analysis, which collectively distinguish it from sibling tools like search_rentals or rental_market_stats.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Sirve para "¿me están cobrando caro?" o para negociar.' This gives clear intended user scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full routing guide, but the context is clear enough.

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