cobertura

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the content of the report (norms by source and type, municipal sources) but says nothing about read-only nature, scope limits, cost, or whether results are aggregated counts versus raw listings. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence with no filler. However, it is not front-loaded with a verb, starting instead with a colon-led clause, which slightly reduces scannability.

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 two undescribed optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify both accepted filters and what the report returns. It gestures at the return content but omits parameter behavior and any scoping semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain 'estado' and 'municipio'. It only mentions 'municipio' as content ('la fuente municipal de cada municipio'), not as a filter parameter, and never addresses 'estado' or the fact that both are optional and nullable. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys that the tool reports coverage — what norms exist and what is missing, broken down by source and type, plus the municipal source per municipality. That is more specific than the bare name 'cobertura', but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb and no explicit contrast against siblings like 'fuentes' or 'buscar_norma', leaving the exact operation somewhat vague.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the ten siblings, nor of prerequisites or conditions. An agent must infer that this is an inventory/coverage report, with no guidance on whether it is a starting point or a last-resort check.

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