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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it consumes 1 of the user's 10 monthly questions (a quota/rate-limit disclosure) and returns source links, data-quality warnings, and remaining-question count. It does not state idempotency or failure behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then examples, then return contents, then the quota/routing caveat — a sensible ordering. The four examples are somewhat redundant with each other but each demonstrates a distinct question shape, so the length is defensible rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully previews that responses include datasets with official links, coverage warnings, and remaining quota. For a one-parameter, open-world query tool with sibling routing already resolved, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single 'pregunta' parameter, so the description must carry the burden — and it does via four sample questions that establish that input is a free-form natural-language question (Spanish) rather than a structured query. It never states format constraints or length, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('responde una pregunta sobre datos públicos oficiales de Argentina, con fuentes') and the four example questions pin down the exact kind of input it handles. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling pair buscar_datasets + obtener_datos, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule with a cost trade-off: 'si podés responder con buscar_datasets + obtener_datos, preferí esas', which implies this tool is the fallback when the raw-fetch siblings cannot synthesize an answer. Both the alternative and the selecting condition are named.

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