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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: results are ordered by distinct people rather than total questions, the rationale behind that ordering, and that only aggregates are returned while raw user text is never exposed. This adds meaningful privacy and methodology context the annotations do not convey.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then use cases, then key behavioral rules. Every sentence earns its place, including the concise justification for ordering by distinct people rather than question count.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides enough return-related context: results are aggregated by category and town, sorted by distinct people, and raw text is withheld. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether 'esta fuente' refers to a specific named source or what the exact output shape looks like, but the essential information is present.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The description adds general context about aggregation by category and town, which supports the municipio parameter, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns what real people in Puerto Rico asked this source and the source could not answer, aggregated by category and town. This clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like demanda_local or desiertos_salud.

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 two explicit use cases: knowing when NOT to trust the source, and seeing unserved local demand. This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as demanda_local or state when this tool should not be used.

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