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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: 'nunca por total bruto' (never by gross total), which clarifies a specific output rule. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand a key limitation without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 a single, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the primary function (official SIPC prices). It is concise and contains no filler, though the phrasing is somewhat packed. It earns a high score for efficiency but loses a point for being slightly dense and requiring careful parsing.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description should provide a clear picture of expected outputs and parameter usage. It gives a high-level overview of outputs (price categories and cheapest supermarkets) but lacks details on how 'limit' influences results and does not describe the response structure. This leaves an agent guessing about the exact call format, making the tool incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'text' has a description). The tool description gives context for 'text' (article) and 'department' (department) via phrases like 'por artículo' and 'de un departamento', but the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the meaning of 'limit' ambiguous.

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 states the tool provides official SIPC prices per article (with categories and store counts) and cheapest supermarkets per department via a matched basket. It is specific and distinct from all sibling tools, which cover cars, houses, and rentals, so an agent can identify its purpose without confusion. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', slightly reducing clarity.

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 mentions a use case ('útil para estimar el costo de vida al mudarse') which implies when to use it, but it does not provide explicit conditions or exclusions relative to other tools. Since no sibling tool covers supermarket pricing, there are no direct alternatives to contrast, but the guidance is still minimal and relies on inference.

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