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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('donde hay propiedades') and guarantees a complete list ('lista completa'), which is useful. It does not mention return format, pagination, or potential empty results, but for a simple read-only list tool this is somewhat adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase serves a purpose. It is efficient and clear without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool returns and why it is useful. It doesn't describe the exact data structure, but that is not necessary for a simple list tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the output scope ('complete list' and 'where properties exist'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Obtiene la lista completa de municipios'), the resource ('municipios disponibles en La Palma donde hay propiedades'), and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'listar_barrios' by focusing specifically on municipalities, not neighborhoods.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Útil para saber qué ubicaciones se pueden filtrar' – the agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the scope is well-defined.

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