idealista_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the return (text plus numbered buttons/links/fields) and "read" implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not state that numbering is the handle used by click/type, whether the read triggers a fresh page load or waits for it, or whether numbers remain valid across reads.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the payload enumeration is packed efficiently. It is arguably too terse for its role, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the page scope. The remaining gap is the element scoping parameter and the tie-in of numbered references to the click/type siblings, which the agent would have to infer.

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% and the single optional parameter 'element' is documented there as 'Read only inside this element.' The description never mentions scoping to an element, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (read) plus the exact resource (the current Idealista page) and enumerates what comes back: text, numbered buttons, links and fields. That return enumeration also implicitly separates it from the action siblings (idealista_click, idealista_type, idealista_open, idealista_close), though none is named.

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?

"Current Idealista page" implies a page must already be loaded via idealista_open, and the mention of numbered buttons hints that the output feeds the numbered-reference tools. But nothing is explicit: no statement of when to read vs. re-read, and no named alternative or exclusion.

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