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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the source publishes its own margin of error, and 'Un dato importado de un registro federal NO cuenta como verificado por una persona' clarifies the meaning of the freshness metric.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the return value, the second gives usage guidance, and the third clarifies an important semantic edge case. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers what is returned, how it is grouped, and an important caveat about federal imports. An output schema is absent, but the description gives enough for an agent to understand the response shape at a high level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small amount of semantic context by mentioning 'por municipio o categoría', which maps to the ambito parameter, but does not elaborate on limitation or formatting 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: 'Devuelve el porciento de fichas verificadas a mano en los últimos 90 y 365 días, por municipio o categoría.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like buscar_medico or chequear_recall by focusing on data freshness and manual verification percentages.

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 contextual guidance: 'si vas a citar un dato de un ámbito con pct_frescas_90d bajo, dilo' implies the tool should be used when assessing whether a datum is fresh enough to cite. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is clear.

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