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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context: no mention of data source, freshness, geographic scope, or whether results are paginated or limited. It lists data categories rather than behavior.

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?

A single sentence that is compact and free of padding, but it is a bare list of fields rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so it is terse without being informative.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations explaining return semantics, the description should establish what the tool returns and how it differs from siblings. Instead it only lists data categories and leaves the core function and positioning ambiguous.

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 100% with the only parameter (remedio) fully documented including examples. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates fields returned (price per pharmacy, price per unit, active ingredient, other brands, 30-day price variation) but never states the verb or resource: it never says it returns a sheet/profile for a medication. An agent must infer the function from the tool name and title. It also doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like buscar_precio or marcas_mismo_principio.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings buscar_precio (price search) and marcas_mismo_principio (same-ingredient brands), and the description even mentioning price and other brands, the overlap is significant yet no routing rule is given.

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