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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well on cost ('Costo: 1 crédito(s)') and on the approximate/fuzzy nature of matching plus per-tramo results. It does not explain what happens when nothing matches, how loose the fuzzy matching is, or whether results are ranked/limited beyond the schema default.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and return shape front-loaded, followed by use cases and cost. Every sentence adds information; only mild redundancy in re-listing the returned fields that the following clause also covers.

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?

For a 6-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for the missing output schema and discloses cost. However, half the input parameters (max, provincia, departamento, and the filter role of localidad) remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at filtering behavior.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that 'nombre' is matched approximately and mentions 'categoria', but the text lists categoría as part of the response rather than clearly as a filter, and it never explains that localidad, departamento, provincia narrow the search or what 'max' controls.

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 calles por nombre aproximado') and even enumerates the shape of the response (nombre oficial, categoría, rango de alturas, localidad/departamento/provincia por tramo). This makes it immediately separable from buscar_localidad and normalizar_direccion, which deal with a single administrative unit or a full-address conversion rather than street/tramo lookup.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: validating that a street exists and that a height falls within the range before normalizing, and autocompletion. It does not name alternatives (e.g., normalizar_direccion or buscar_localidad) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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