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.