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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavioral traits: the sample is randomly drawn, not the total, and ordering is only within that random group. It warns against presenting the sample as 'the best' or 'closest' and lists data the tool does not return (prices, distance, availability, photos).

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 about 100 words but every sentence contributes: what it does, when to call, the random-sample caveat, presentation rules, and disambiguation guidance. It is structured with an 'IMPORTANTE' marker and no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, it adequately describes the return (counts and profile samples with score/review count). It covers usage context, limitations, and required preconditions (asked city/barrio), making it a complete guide.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the city parameter can be a city or barrio and instructing the agent to disambiguate ambiguous city names before calling, which is not in the schema.

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 opens with 'Devuelve cuántos Coopers (cuidadores) trabajan en una ciudad o barrio, y una muestra de perfiles con su puntaje y cantidad de reseñas', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns counts and samples, not coverage or order creation.

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?

Explicitly states when to invoke ('cuando el usuario pide ver quién puede atenderlo en su zona o quiere conocer perfiles antes de crear una solicitud') and when not to, redirecting to the external URL for actual attendance. It also instructs the agent to ask for a disambiguated city/barrio before invoking on ambiguous zones.

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