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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the cube's dimensional structure and rollup/group semantics and a link to external query-format docs, which is useful but not rich behavioral disclosure (no pagination, limits, or error behavior).

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the doc pointers relegated to the end. Slightly dense with two external URLs, but nothing is wasted.

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 complex nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description leans on external links (docs and JSON Schema) rather than explaining the matrix/rows/geojson outputs or constraints. The schema carries most meaning, leaving the description only minimally complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters including geo.in, drill, rollup, time, format and by. The description restates rollups (CA7, SICA8, NTCA) and matrix output without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (runs a structured query) and resource (the datosmcp cube with indicators × places × years), plus distinguishing features like regional rollups and matrix output. It references sibling helpers find_indicators and list_places, so an agent can place it, but doesn't explicitly contrast with data-access siblings such as search_data.

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: the description routes the agent to find_indicators for indicator ids and list_places for geo codes and mentions the query-format spec. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against alternatives like search_data, so an agent must infer the context.

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