cobertura_concepto

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

With no annotations available, the description carries all responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. The phrase 'what the corpus covers and what it doesn't' is a scope statement, not a behavioral description.

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?

The description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information such as return format, parameter behavior, and usage context, making it an ineffective tool description.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it correctly. It does not even hint at what the output looks like or how the 'solo_vacios' parameter influences the result. The tool cannot be invoked correctly by an agent relying solely on this description.

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 schema defines a single parameter 'solo_vacios' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no idea what this parameter does, what values are expected, or how it affects the output. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Qu� cubre el corpus y qu� no' conveys that the tool is about coverage of the corpus, which is a vague purpose but not a pure tautology. It names the resource (corpus) and the two sides (covers/doesn't cover), but lacks a specific verb like 'get', 'check', or 'returns'. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like 'buscar_concepto' or 'explicar_concepto' without additional context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context, no exclusions, and no reference to any sibling tool. This is a single clause with no actionable usage information.

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