Lugar para Mí

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates returned fields (precio, administración, metros, habitaciones, baños, localidad, enlace) and explicitly discloses what is NOT returned (dirección exacta, datos de contacto) plus the reason and workaround. It omits any auth/rate-limit behavior for the tool itself, but the output-boundary disclosure is unusually strong.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and output scope first, then the negative constraints and their consequence. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant limitation (no address/contact) is surfaced rather than buried.

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 output schema, the description must and does enumerate return fields and exclusions, which is the key missing piece. It leaves minor gaps such as result ordering and behavior when localidad matches nothing, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limite, localidad, and precio_maximo. The description only echoes 'venta o arriendo' (operacion) and Bogotá (localidad) without adding format, units, or default semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca inmuebles publicados en venta o arriendo en Bogotá') with clear scope covering operation type and geography. It does not name or contrast the sibling tools valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto / valor_del_suelo_por_localidad, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 implies usage by describing what it returns and explicitly what it withholds, plus the workaround for contacting owners. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the land-value siblings, and no prerequisites or filtering guidance beyond the schema.

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 does add real value by disclosing provenance ('dato del catastro distrital, no un estimado'), which tells the agent the result is authoritative rather than modeled. However, it says nothing about failure modes for points outside Bogotá, missing data, or response shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the input then the output, with no filler. The comparison rationale and the authoritative-source caveat both earn their place.

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 read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (m² land value for the block and its neighbors). Only edge-case behavior for out-of-range or data-less points is left unaddressed.

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 with valid Bogotá ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the input is a lat/lng point in Bogotá, adding no format or precision guidance beyond the schema.

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 clear verb (devuelve) and a specific resource: the reference value per square meter of LAND for the block containing the given point plus neighboring blocks. It implicitly differentiates from the locality-based sibling by being point-scoped, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts 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?

The phrase 'para poder comparar' hints at why an agent would use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to valor_del_suelo_por_localidad or buscar_inmuebles as alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the point-vs-locality distinction.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned metrics (mediana, rango del 80% central, puesto relativo, diferencia porcentual vs. la ciudad) and the data source (catastro distrital). It does not address auth requirements, data freshness/period, or whether the values are strictly read-only, leaving modest gaps for a fully un-annotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource and scope come first, followed by the returned metrics and the default behavior. It is dense but every clause adds information, with only minor overload from the metric enumeration.

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 read-only aggregate lookup with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (median, 80% range, ranking, city-relative difference) and the no-argument fallback, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Missing details like cadastral data vintage or units beyond m² are minor.

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 the single parameter and its optionality/example values are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the fact that the localities number 20 and restates the default-to-all behavior, so it delivers baseline value rather than new parameter semantics.

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 ('devuelve') and a precisely scoped resource: reference m² value of SUELO (land, not construction) per locality in Bogotá. The parenthetical disambiguation 'terreno, no construcción' and the locality scope make it clearly separable from valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto and buscar_inmuebles.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition for the optional parameter ('Si no se da localidad, devuelve las 20'), which tells the agent both the single-locality and aggregate modes. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when one should be preferred over valor_del_suelo_en_un_punto, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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