idealista_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says what is inspected (account, credits, connection) but never states that the call is read-only, what happens if a check fails, or what the response contains — for a diagnostic tool, failure/return behavior matters most.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, but there is mild redundancy between 'account' appearing twice and the 'ready' framing duplicating the list that follows.

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 simple zero-parameter tool this is close, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent gets no sense of the result shape (per-check status? overall boolean?) or what a failing state looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated check subjects loosely map to the internal checks performed.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete subject: account, credits, and Idealista connection readiness. It is distinguishable from siblings like idealista_open/read/click/type, though the description never explicitly frames it as a preflight check relative to those tools.

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 phrase 'check that ... are ready' implies this is a prerequisite/diagnostic step before using the browser tools, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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