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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about aggregation from multiple sources, the breakdown by source/severity, and importantly clarifies that the limit parameter only affects the sample while the breakdown reflects the real total. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a clear, bulleted argument explanation. It front-loads the key information and avoids unnecessary 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (aggregated alerts with breakdown and sample) and how the parameter affects the response. It lacks only minor details like data freshness, but overall is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including its range, default, and the note about the summary reflecting the real total. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and the resource 'alertas actualmente activas' aggregated from multiple official sources, listing specific categories (traffic, fires, weather, earthquakes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools about stations, coverage, and fuel prices.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving active alerts from official sources, which is a distinct use case from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, though none are needed given the domain separation.

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