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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description usefully characterizes the response as an aggregated dossier spanning multiple sources, which hints at a heavy payload, but it does not mention failure behavior for an invalid/expired key, rate limits, or result size — the traits least obvious to an agent planning the call.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core object ('Ficha completa de una vivienda en alquiler') followed by the payload enumeration. The list is long but every element adds information about what the agent will receive; no filler or hedging.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating the dossier sections. Missing only error/not-found handling and result-size expectations, which matter for a tool that can return a large aggregated record.

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 100% and the schema description already explains that `key` comes from other tools or from the cambio-uruguay.com/alquileres/<key> URL, including length bounds. The description adds nothing about the key's format, origin, or validity, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Ficha completa de una vivienda en alquiler') and enumerates the payload precisely: listings with per-portal pricing, amenities, guarantee, surfaces, neighborhood median comparison, similars, and neighborhood profile. It is clearly the detail-lookup counterpart to search_rentals/best_house, but it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'ficha completa' implies this is the deep-dive call after a search, and the schema note that the key comes from other tools reinforces that flow. However, the description itself states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and does not point at search_rentals or rank_rentals_for_household as the intake path.

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