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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only health check, what conditions produce failures, auth needs, or rate limits. It states only the surface purpose.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument tool, though it is too terse to carry much information.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can invoke it, but it does not explain what the returned status comprises (service up/down, latency, dataset freshness) or how to interpret it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description needs to clarify.

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 (returns the status of the Peru data service), so the agent can infer this is a health-check style tool. However, 'estado del servicio de datos del Perú' is broad and the description does not differentiate this from the sibling data-fetching tools (contrataciones_*, norma_*, tipo_cambio), which all serve the same Peru dataset.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to call this tool versus the siblings, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. The agent must guess that this is a status/health probe rather than a data retrieval call.

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