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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it sends to a team and lists use cases, but doesn't disclose what happens after submission, whether it's fire-and-forget, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 action and team, followed by use conditions. Efficient with no obvious waste, though the enumerated list of report types is somewhat dense.

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?

Covers the purpose, usage triggers, and some key fields, but for a 7-parameter tool with 43% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves gaps: what happens after submission, what the remaining parameters mean, and how the tool interacts with siblings like list_data_requests.

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 43%, so the description must partially compensate. It mentions indicator id, place, and period, and the kind categories align with the enum. However, it doesn't address question, source_url, or the message field's purpose beyond schema-provided description. Baseline 3 with partial compensation.

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 (sends a report) and resource (to the DatosIA team) with enumerated report categories that map to the kind enum. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_data_requests or query_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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks to report something, or when you find a clear error in a result.' Names both the trigger and the proactive case, which is strong routing guidance.

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