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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it discloses returned street fields, optional filtering, Spain-only scope, and that it is one API call. It omits authentication needs, pagination, error behavior, and result-completeness details, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, opening with the resource and returned field shape. The Spain-only constraint and prerequisite source guidance are compact, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned street fields and filtering behavior. For a simple 3-parameter list tool it covers scope and prerequisite lookups, though pagination and ordering are not specified.

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 the schema already documents the region/municipality provenance and the optional name filter. The description restates 'Take region from list_provinces and municipality from list_municipalities' and 'part of the street name' without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: streets of one Spanish municipality, with returned fields (type code, name, full name) and an optional name filter. It also scopes the tool to Spain and points to sibling list tools for prerequisite names, making it clearly distinguishable from alternatives.

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 gives clear context by saying to take region from list_provinces and municipality from list_municipalities, and that the name filter is optional. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or an alternative such as search_address, so it falls short of a 5.

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