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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: the prices are asking prices, not signed prices. It also clarifies that the tool returns statistical aggregations rather than individual listings. It does not describe response formatting or edge cases, but the annotations reduce 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 compact and well-structured: core output, grouping dimensions, concrete use cases, and a caveat in three short sentences. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 usefully enumerates the returned metrics and available grouping dimensions, plus an important data-quality caveat. It does not state the default behavior when no filters are passed, but for a tool with all optional parameters this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already documents currency, department, and neighborhood. The description adds natural-language mapping through examples like '2 dormitorios' and 'Pocitos' and mentions grouping by type and bedrooms. However, it does not materially explain the values or constraints for the undocumented 'type' and 'bedrooms' parameters, so it only partially compensates for the 60% schema description coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing rental market statistics: median and typical p25–p75 range, common expenses, monthly total, and price per m², segmented by department, neighborhood, property type, and bedrooms. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from analytical siblings like estimate_fair_rent or compare_neighborhoods, but the aggregate-statistics framing is strong and actionable.

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 says 'Usalo para' and gives two concrete example queries: '¿cuánto sale alquilar 2 dormitorios en Pocitos?' and '¿dónde me alcanza con $30.000?'. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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