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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low, but the description adds nothing beyond them: no note on what the ficha contains, whether missing parcels error or return empty, or what the geometry flag changes in the payload.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is the same sentence stated twice (Spanish then English), which doubles length without adding information rather than spending that space on the missing id/geometry semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a two-parameter lookup tool sitting among three near-identical siblings, the absence of param format details and sibling differentiation leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The 'id' parameter's expected format (CABA vs PBA identifier shapes) is unexplained, and 'incluir_geometria' — a toggle with real output-size implications — is not mentioned anywhere.

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 ('Devuelve') and resource ('ficha de una parcela'), and scopes it to CABA or PBA. However, it never states that lookup is keyed on an 'id', nor does it distinguish this from siblings like parcela_por_nomenclatura or parcela_por_coordenada that fetch the same record via different keys.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With four sibling tools that all surface parcel data, the agent is left to infer that this one is for direct id lookup; nothing in the text confirms or excludes that.

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