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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add real value beyond them: live-source inventory, geographic coverage per source (Bogotá-only sensors, nationwide seismic/fire data), the 3h/6h forecast horizon, and the 'Sin datos personales' privacy note. It stops short of covering ambiguity handling, rate limits, latency, or what happens when no station is nearby, which keeps it at a solid 3 rather than a 4.

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 payload is front-loaded and each sentence carries information: sources, coverage, input modes, privacy, and trigger conditions. It is a dense single paragraph, however, and the long parenthetical source lists slow scanning compared with a short bulleted or segmented structure.

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 takes on the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at the category level: measured events, recent quakes, satellite fire detections, verified citizen reports, and hourly rain forecast. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only response shape and empty-result behavior.

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 earns an extra point by showing what 'lugar' accepts in practice ('Suba, Bogotá', 'calle 80 con Boyacá', 'Envigado') and by making clear that text place and lat/lon are alternative input modes. Radius and coordinate meaning remain solely in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('riesgos activos alrededor de un lugar de Colombia') and enumerates the exact data sources (IDIGER, SIATA, USGS, NASA FIRMS, citizen reports, MET Norway). It never names or contrasts with the siblings explicar_cobertura or perfil_cuadro, but the purpose is unmistakable enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: risk, rain, flooding, earthquake, fire questions for a Colombian zone, or whether it will rain in the coming hours. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but the trigger conditions are concrete and actionable.

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