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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no indication of what the returned coverage/attribution structure represents, whether results are static reference data, or roughly how large the response is. For a zero-parameter catalog/meta tool, more framing about the returned reference data would be valuable.

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 single sentence front-loading the action and resource, with a parallel English rendering. It is short and waste-free, though the bilingual duplicate essentially repeats the same content and the input schema's own description, so it carries little added information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters or nesting to document. The remaining gap is conceptual: what "cobertura" and "atribuciones" actually contain and why an agent would call this before a parcel query. That leaves the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. This hits the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 verb and resource ("Devuelve cobertura disponible y atribuciones" / "Get available coverage and sources"), so the agent knows it is a read of coverage metadata. However, "cobertura" is left undefined — it is unclear whether it means geographic data coverage, dataset extent, or licensing/attribution info — and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling parcel-lookup tools. It reads close to a restatement of the title "Cobertura y fuentes".

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ficha_parcela, parcela_por_coordenada, parcela_por_nomenclatura, or parcelas_en_area, and no stated prerequisites or follow-up flow. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a metadata/scope-check tool rather than a parcel query.

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