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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: regional rollup groups (CA7, SICA8, NTCA), matrix output, and the default of latest-year-with-data. It omits result size/row limits and pagination behavior, which matters for a 20-indicator × 20-place cube query.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the format reference; no filler. The documentation and JSON Schema URLs are arguably load-bearing but consume the second half of the text.

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 5-parameter tool with nested objects (geo, time), no output schema, and no annotations on return shape, the description is only partially adequate: it defers the entire query grammar to external URLs that an agent may not be able to fetch, leaving response format and result-size behavior unexplained.

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 geo.in codes, drill levels, rollup semantics, last/from/to, and format enums in detail. The description restates the axes and mentions rollups and matrix output but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs a structured query against the DatosIA cube') and names the cube's axes (indicators × places × years), so an agent can distinguish it from feeders like find_indicators and list_places. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not sibling-explicit.

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 by the cube shape and the linked query format, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_data, trade_by_product, or supply_balance, and no stated prerequisites such as needing indicator ids from find_indicators or place codes from list_places before calling.

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