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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its space on traits annotations cannot express: live data, named upstream sources, country-wide vs. city-specific coverage, the 3h/6h forecast horizon, and 'Sin datos personales'. Useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage trigger; nearly every clause carries information. The parenthetical source list makes the first sentence a long run-on, but each item helps an agent judge relevance, so the density is largely earned.

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?

No output schema, so the description must imply the return shape; enumerating the aggregated event types plus the forecast does that adequately. It could say more about how results are structured or ordered near the radius, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by showing accepted 'lugar' formats ('Suba, Bogotá', 'calle 80 con Boyacá', 'Envigado') and stating that coordinates are an alternative. radio_km is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource ('Riesgos activos alrededor de un lugar de Colombia') and then enumerates exactly which datasets are aggregated (IDIGER, SIATA, USGS, NASA FIRMS, vecinos, Open-Meteo). An agent knows precisely what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions: 'Úsala cuando alguien pregunte si hay riesgo, lluvia, inundación, sismo, incendio o problemas en una zona de Colombia o si va a llover en las próximas horas.' Clear positive guidance, but no exclusions or mention of the sibling explicar_cobertura as an alternative.

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