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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the description does not need to cover safety. It does add one genuinely useful behavioural trait: the data comes from the 2022 Census base and is projected to July 1, which tells the agent how current the figures are. It says nothing about projection uncertainty, gaps for smaller units, or response shape, though an output schema already covers the response shape.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, and the key elements — indicator, reference date, source base, scope, breakdowns — all come first. It is efficient, though the trailing 'con apertura por...' clause is a little compressed and nearly restates the 'by' parameter.

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?

With an output schema present and all three optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description needs only to frame scope and data vintage, and it does. Only the routing guidance (when to use this versus siblings) is missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only data tool.

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 explains 'by', 'year', and 'place' in detail, including the default and the valid ranges. The description only echoes the breakdown dimensions ('por sexo, grupos de edad o departamentos') and the geographic levels; it adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise resource — estimated and projected population as of July 1 (2022 Census base) — and states its full scope: country, province, or department, broken down by sex, age group, or department. That level of specificity is enough for an agent to pick it over siblings like poverty or labor_market, which cover different domains.

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 coverage of the tool is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over compare_series or query_sql, nor does it state any preconditions. The intended use can be inferred from the described scope, but that is all — the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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