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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that omitting service_type returns coverage for all four services, and specifying it restricts the query. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior for unrecognized cities, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior or usage constraints. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, how service_type affects results, and how to handle ambiguous or unrecognized city names. It does not explain the response structure, but that is not strictly necessary for a simple coverage check.

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 schema already describes both parameters (city and service_type), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how service_type affects the result (omitted = all services, specified = one service) and by warning about ambiguous city names. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: indicating whether Cooper operates with active caregivers in a city of Argentina. It uses a specific verb ('Indica') and resource ('cobertura de Cooper por ciudad'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are about coverage checks.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it advises the agent to ask for clarification before invoking when a city name is ambiguous or when a province is mentioned, and to ask for a more specific reference if the city is not recognized. However, it does not compare against alternative tools, though no sibling tool serves a similar purpose.

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