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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-style query ('Devuelve...'), that results are limited to manual verification rates, and importantly that imported federal-registry records are not counted as verified. This is meaningful behavioral detail, though output shape and any other constraints are left implicit.

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 a tight three-sentence structure: first the result, then the important usage caveat, then the technical qualification about federal imports. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant fluff.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, this is complete: it explains what the tool computes, what the fields mean, the key interpretation caveat, and how the query is scoped. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the parameters already have clear meanings. The description adds little beyond repeating 'municipio o categoría', which is acceptable but not additional semantic value.

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 the percentage of manually verified records over 90 and 365 days. The title 'Qué tan fresco está este dato' and the error-margin framing make its purpose as a freshness/source-quality tool unambiguous.

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 a clear intended scenario: check this before citing data from an ámbito, and explicitly flag low pct_frescas_90d values. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is concrete enough.

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