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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real operational context on top: throughput ('~10 consultas por minuto'), cold-start latency ('la primera tarda hasta un minuto') and a privacy guarantee ('Los ingresos no se guardan'). It also enumerates the return payload (score 0-100, income %, remainder, distances, warnings) despite there being no output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it returns, minimal inputs, privacy, rate limit). The sentences are long and clause-stacked, which costs a little scannability.

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 19-parameter, annotation-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: return shape, minimum required inputs, latency and rate limits, and a data-retention guarantee. Nothing essential to a correct first call is absent.

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 earns above that by clarifying that budget means rent plus common expenses measured against income and other expenses, and by flagging the minimal viable subset of a 19-parameter surface. It does not, however, explain the weighting effects of 'priority' or the neighborhood filters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('puntúa las viviendas vigentes para un hogar') plus the two scoring axes (budget vs income/expenses, and per-person distance to destinations). That clearly separates it from plain listing tools like search_rentals or estimate_fair_rent, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Pedí lo mínimo: presupuesto, dónde va cada uno, dormitorios, mascotas' tells the agent which inputs to collect before calling, which matters given only 2 of 19 params are required. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling like search_rentals for unfiltered browsing.

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