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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it only returns category counts and never raw messages, which sets clear privacy and output expectations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences communicate purpose, scope, aggregation, privacy safeguards, and intended use with no filler. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only tool with one documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output shape (category counts) despite there being no output schema, though it could briefly mention the time-window parameter as the primary input.

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 single parameter 'dias' is fully documented in the schema with type, range, and default. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the parameter semantics are already adequately handled.

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 states a specific resource: aggregated counts of service searches from real people in Cabo Rojo and western PR via channel *7711. The verb 'buscó' plus the aggregation and geographic scope make the tool's function clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 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 'Útil para entender qué hace falta en el mercado local' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over siblings like buscar_medico or desiertos_salud, nor any exclusion criteria.

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