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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not obligated there. It adds genuine behavioral context by clarifying that it separates what is in force from what is merely proposed, and flags a data limitation (the source does not fix the exact expiry day).

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the full bilingual restatement roughly doubles the length without adding new information. Efficient per language, yet redundant overall.

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 and a simple read-only, two-parameter surface, the description adequately conveys what an agent will receive (status, resolution/BOE, proposal, expiry). It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit output-field naming and sibling routing.

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 only two simple parameters (municipio, language enum), so the schema carries the burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for municipio and does not mention the language option.

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 resource (rent-cap / stressed residential market zone status for a municipality) and enumerates what the result includes: in-force status, resolution/BOE reference, proposed changes, and expiry. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like ficha_municipio, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though siblings such as ficha_municipio and comparar_municipios plausibly overlap. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement.

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