Fulfy Plus

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (state, municipio, parroquia, city list with `id`), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not state what happens when coordinates fall outside Venezuela, whether partial matches are returned, or how large the city list may be.

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 sentence that front-loads the input condition and then enumerates the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the schema, nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both the geographic input constraint and the shape of the return value. Only the out-of-Venezuela / no-match behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by adding a real constraint not expressible in the schema: the coordinates must fall inside Venezuela, whereas the schema only bounds them globally to ±90/±180.

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 verb and resource: given coordinates, it returns state, municipio, parroquia and the candidate city list with `id`. That is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `get_location`, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 'dentro de Venezuela' implicitly scopes the tool geographically and hints at when it applies versus a general location tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing decision from the country constraint alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it partially does so by disclosing the return fields and the Venezuela-only coverage limit. It does not say what happens for coordinates outside Venezuela, whether results can be partial or ambiguous, or anything about latency or rate limits.

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 well-formed sentence with the returned fields and the coverage constraint front-loaded. No filler, but the one sentence leaves room that an additional clause on out-of-scope coordinates could have used.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the geographic boundary of validity. The main remaining gap is the behavior for invalid or out-of-country coordinates.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented as WGS 84 decimal degrees with explicit ranges. The description adds no format, precision, or ordering detail beyond 'coordenadas', so the baseline 3 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 operation (reverse geocoding) and enumerates the returned fields (país, estado, municipio, parroquia, códigos postales), plus the geographic scope (Venezuela). It is clearly distinct from get_cities and quote_shipment, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scope clause 'dentro de Venezuela' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies and when it does not apply, but there is no explicit statement of alternatives or preconditions. No mention of when to prefer get_cities for name-based lookups or quote_shipment for shipping context.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the read-only nature explicitly ('no crea órdenes ni guías'), states the geographic domain (Venezuela), and describes what comes back (options and prices per carrier). It omits error behavior and what happens when a destination is unserviceable, which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences in a deliberate order: what it does, what it needs, what it returns, what it does not do. The scope and inputs are front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, inputs, return content and the read-only guarantee. The main missing piece is guidance that coordinates must be resolved beforehand (the get_location/get_cities siblings exist for that), which matters given five required coordinate parameters.

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 100%, so every one of the 9 parameters is already documented, including the declared-value default behavior. The description only restates the input list (coordinates, weight, optional declared value and dimensions) without adding units nuance, format, or constraints beyond the schema — baseline 3 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Cotiza un envío') plus concrete scope: within Venezuela, using Fulfy Plus partner carriers. That scope makes it clearly distinct from the location-lookup siblings get_cities and get_location, although it never names them.

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?

It sets clear usage context (price quoting for a shipment with partner carriers) and adds an explicit negative boundary: 'Solo consulta precios: no crea órdenes ni guías.' It does not route the agent to any alternative or prerequisite (for example, that coordinates must be obtained elsewhere), so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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