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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's real contribution is the hard area/side-length limit, which is a genuine behavioral constraint absent from the schema (no max on coordinates). It says nothing about pagination behavior, coordinate reference system, or what happens when the rectangle exceeds the limit.

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 with the key constraint front-loaded. The English sentence is largely a restatement of the Spanish one, so it is redundant for anyone reading both, though harmless for cross-lingual routing.

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 need not be described, and the core purpose plus area cap are covered. For a 6-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, however, the absence of any guidance on cursor/limite pagination and coordinate ordering leaves real gaps.

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% for all six parameters, so the description must carry the load; it only partially does, clarifying the spatial extent limit but never explaining the cursor/limite pagination parameters or that min_lon/min_lat/max_lon/max_lat are degrees forming a bounding box.

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 a concrete spatial scope ('hasta 1 km², lados de hasta 2 km'), which distinguishes it from the point-lookup and cadastral-code siblings without naming them. The only weakness is that the contrast with parcela_por_coordenada and parcela_por_nomenclatura is left implicit.

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 size cap ('hasta 1 km²', 'lados de hasta 2 km') implies the intended use case – small-area searching rather than a whole municipality – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the four siblings.

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