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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by spelling out the exact contents of the response: per-portal prices, neighborhood comparisons, similar homes, and neighborhood profile data. It does not discuss errors, rate limits, or data freshness, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 densely packed but every clause adds useful information about the tool's scope, and the input instruction is front-loaded at the end. The first sentence is long and enumerative, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the major response components. It also covers the single required parameter's accepted forms. Minor gaps such as error behavior and exact return structure are acceptable for a simple read-only detail fetch.

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 already says the key can be a key or URL. The description adds value by specifying the exact URL template, https://cambio-uruguay.com/alquileres/<key>, and clarifying that the key comes from other tools, which helps the agent construct or pass the parameter correctly.

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 ('Ficha completa de una vivienda en alquiler') and enumerates the detailed sections returned, making it unmistakably a detail-view tool. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_rentals or list_houses, which are listing-oriented.

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 gives clear usage context by stating that the tool accepts the key returned by 'las otras tools' or a direct URL, implying it is meant to be used after a search or with an existing listing. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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