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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the data only covers Gran Buenos Aires, begins in abr-2016 for baskets and 2020 for crianza, and returns variations alongside levels.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the alternative mode; nothing is redundant padding. It is slightly run-on with the 'o la canasta de crianza' clause, but every element carries 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?

For a read-only, parameter-light tool with a full output schema, the description covers both data modes, the geographic scope and the temporal coverage, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is routing guidance against the 'poverty' sibling, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness failure.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the CBT/CBA/crianza values and the age_group tramos. The description restates the same basket semantics (CBT = poverty line, CBA = indigency line, crianza = cost of raising a child) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — the peso value of the Gran Buenos Aires basic food/total baskets (CBA/CBT) and the 'crianza' basket — with its geographic scope and start dates (abr-2016, 2020). An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings, though it never states a verb (fetch/return) and does not contrast itself with the closely related 'poverty' tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: by equating CBT with the poverty line and CBA with the indigency line, it hints when each basket variant is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling 'poverty' tool that an agent might otherwise pick.

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