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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds extra behavioral context without contradicting them: it discloses the lack of legal validity, the CC BY 4.0 attribution requirement, and the per-call price. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core conversion behavior and then adds essential caveats, attribution, and pricing. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description must carry the full burden of guiding invocation. It provides purpose, legal notes, and pricing, but omits parameter semantics, return format, and example usage, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool reliably.

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% and the description does not explain the 'direccion' or 'limite' parameters, their formats, or whether they are required. Although 'direccion' is inferable from the tool's purpose, 'limite' remains unexplained and no address format guidance is given.

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 states a specific verb ('Convierte'), a clear resource (Spanish addresses via CartoCiudad del IGN), and the expected outputs (coordinates, municipality, province, postal code). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which are mostly generic converters or indicator-related tools.

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 description implies usage for geocoding Spanish addresses and adds a caveat about legal validity, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The intended context is inferable but not directly guided.

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