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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fully explains that output is aggregated only, that personal raw text is never exposed, and that ordering is by distinct people rather than question count. This is exactly the kind of useful behavioral detail that prevents misuse and misunderstanding.

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 compact and front-loaded: the behavior is in the opening sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a new, non-redundant detail about purpose, ordering, and privacy. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, how it is ordered, that it is aggregate-only, and the privacy constraint. Some ambiguity remains around what 'esta fuente' refers to outside the title, and the exact output shape is not described, but the tool is simple enough that this is a solid definition.

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 parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying how results are aggregated and ordered by distinct persons, which affects how 'limite' and 'municipio' should be interpreted. It does not write out parameter-level details, but it compensates 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 clearly states the specific behavior: it returns requests that real Puerto Rican people made to this source that the source could not answer, aggregated by category and municipality. It identifies a distinct resource ('esta fuente' and its gaps) and defines what makes it different from more general demand 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 description says it serves two explicit purposes: knowing when NOT to trust this source, and detecting local demand nobody is serving. It gives clear context for when to call it, but it does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives like the sibling tool demanda_local.

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