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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether identifiers can be combined, whether at least one is required, what happens with defaults, or what the response contains, leaving the agent to guess about a lookup with six optional inputs.

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?

Only two sentences, so nothing is bloated, but they are near-duplicate Spanish/English restatements rather than complementary information. The budget is small but the second sentence adds little beyond translation.

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 six optional parameters, zero schema descriptions and a default jurisdiction, the agent needs to know how the identifier fields relate (mutually exclusive vs combinable) and which one to prefer. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the input-side ambiguity is significant for a tool whose whole job is disambiguating identifier formats.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does: it names SMP, CCA, partida and partido but never explains 'nomenclatura' (the tool's own name), the CABA/PBA jurisdiction switch or 'incluir_geometria'. The overlap between smp and nomenclatura remains unexplained.

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 ('Busca'/'Find') and resource ('parcels'/'parcela') and scopes it to cadastral identifiers (SMP, CCA, partida/partido), which lets an agent distinguish it from parcela_por_coordenada and parcelas_en_area. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the identifier-based framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over parcela_por_coordenada, parcelas_en_area or ficha_parcela, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by cadastral identifier'.

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