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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description usefully adds that no personal data is included plus the per-source coverage limits (IDIGER Bogotá-only vs USGS nationwide). It does not address latency, rate limits, or how staleness of live events is handled, so it goes beyond annotations but not exhaustively.

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 paragraph that leads with what is returned and closes with when to use it, so nothing is buried. The source enumeration is long but each clause carries distinct information, so it stays short of bloat.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so at the source/category level (rain, floods, quakes, citizen reports). It stops short of describing response shape or ordering, which an agent would still have to discover by calling it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: example place strings ('Suba, Bogotá', 'calle 80 con Boyacá', 'Chía') and the mutual exclusivity of text place vs coordinates that the schema only hints at with '(alternativa a lugar)'.

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 action and resource ('devuelve los riesgos activos alrededor de un lugar') and enumerates exactly what is returned: live IDIGER events for Bogotá, USGS earthquakes nationwide, and verified citizen reports. It also pins the geographic scope of each source, which implicitly distinguishes it from the coverage-explanation sibling.

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?

It gives concrete trigger scenarios ('cuando alguien pregunte si hay riesgo, lluvia, inundación, sismo o problemas en una zona, o antes de orientar sobre un seguro'). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state a when-not condition, so the sibling relationship remains unstated.

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