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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is what matters, and it adds essentially nothing: no statement about what happens when the point falls outside CABA/PBA, whether one or multiple parcels may be returned, or whether the result is a best-match vs exhaustive lookup. For a spatial lookup where boundary/edge cases are the main behavioral risk, that is a real gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the scope, with zero padding. The English sentence is a near-verbatim translation that adds no new information, though it can aid retrieval, so it is not pure waste.

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 geospatial point-query tool the description omits coordinate format, out-of-coverage behavior, and the meaning of the geometry flag. Given three parameters, none documented, and a hard scope boundary, the definition is too thin to call confidently in edge cases.

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% across three parameters, and the description compensates for none of them: the coordinate reference system/units for lat and lon are unstated, and incluir_geometria (default false) is never explained — an agent cannot tell that it controls whether geometry is returned. Only the field names themselves carry meaning.

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 parcelas") plus the lookup mode ("en un punto") and the geographic scope (CABA or PBA), which lets an agent separate it from parcelas_en_area and parcela_por_nomenclatura by inference. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a lat/lon point lookup, and the CABA/PBA constraint hints at a coverage limit. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not (e.g. don't use for areas or nomenclatures), and no routing to the sibling tools.

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