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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description reveals concrete behavior: it generates a line-by-line budget with prices, recommends used or new items, subtracts items the user already has, and explicitly states that if some prices are missing the total is partial and the tool says so. This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 only two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads purpose, scenario, and key output features; the second handles the important edge case of missing prices. Every word earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining the result format, and it does: line-by-line pricing, used/new recommendation, subtraction of existing items, and partial-total transparency. Given the simple three-parameter input with 100% schema coverage, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: 'canasta mínima, decente o completa' maps to level, 'conviene usado o nuevo' clarifies condition options, and 'restando lo que la persona ya tiene' explains the have parameter's effect. It enriches the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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: 'Presupuesto para equipar una vivienda vacía', clearly defining the tool as a home-furnishing budget generator. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on rent, neighborhoods, or car pricing by naming the exact scenario 'después de alquilar sin amueblar' and the output structure.

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 usage context by identifying the ideal situation: furnishing an empty home after renting unfurnished. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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