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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output is advisement-only, is scoped to Colombia, and explicitly does not produce prices. It stops short of stating that coverage statements are indicative and not binding, which matters for an insurance-coverage claim.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph: purpose, then exclusions ('No da precios'), then the accepted types. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded. The parenthetical list of insurance lines is long but is the substance of the tool, so it earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the agent needs: domain, content of the answer, and the no-pricing boundary. Minor gaps remain — no guidance on what happens with an unrecognized tipo, and no distinction from consultar_riesgo.

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% and the schema already documents synonyms, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the accepted risk domain (lluvia, inundacion, sismo, vendaval, granizo, vial, deslizamiento, incendio, hueco, caida_objetos, hurto), which the schema lacks since it defines no enums — genuine added value for callers picking a value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Guía informativa ... por tipo de riesgo') and enumerates exactly what the guide returns: immediate safety steps plus which insurance lines cover and don't cover the event. That scope is far more precise than a tautology. However, it never references the sibling 'consultar_riesgo', so the agent must infer the boundary between the two from scope alone.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Guía informativa' plus 'No da precios' signals an orientation/education call, not a pricing quote. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to consultar_riesgo for the alternative kind of lookup. Adequate but leaves the choice between siblings to inference.

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