cl_cobertura

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the substance of the response (coverage scope, temporal boundary, exclusions), which is genuine behavioral context, but it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor whether the answer is static documentation or dynamically computed. For a zero-parameter informational tool the risk is low, so this is an acceptable but not thorough disclosure.

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 zero filler, and the most important element (coverage) is front-loaded. It is telegraphic and lacks a leading verb, and the missing accents slightly hurt readability, 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials of what comes back (scope, temporal limit, exclusions). It omits any indication of how authoritative or current that coverage metadata is, and does not say whether calling it first is recommended before the sibling search tools.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the server's coverage) and enumerates three concrete things it reports: what is covered, the time horizon, and what is explicitly excluded. That distinguishes it well from the sibling retrieval tools (cl_buscar, cl_articulo, cl_documento). It stops short of a clear verb/resource framing, reading as a sentence fragment rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a scoping/overview call worth making before searching the corpus. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool as an alternative. The 'que NO cubre' clause hints at a pre-flight check role but never states it.

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