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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it names the return payload (id INDEC, official name, parent province, centroid) and explicitly warns of cost ('Costo: 1 crédito(s)'), which is operationally important. It omits an explicit read-only statement, pagination behavior, and what happens when 'nombre' matches nothing, but the cost and return-shape disclosures are substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return fields, use cases, and cost in a logical order. It is dense but every sentence contributes; the parenthetical id examples consume space but earn it by resolving a real ambiguity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly fills the gap by describing the returned fields and the per-call credit cost. Given only four flat parameters and one required field, little is missing apart from result-limit behavior and empty-result handling.

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 50%: 'nombre' and 'provincia' already carry schema descriptions, while 'max' is self-documenting through default/maximum/minimum constraints but has no description. The description adds value by enumerating the 'tipo' enum values and by implying that omitting nombre lists all entries of a type, but it never discusses the 'max' cap or result limiting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Busca divisiones administrativas oficiales por nombre aproximado') and enumerates the three division types covered, so the resource is unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like buscar_localidad only implicitly via the phrase 'divisiones administrativas oficiales' rather than naming the boundary, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Supplies three concrete use cases: disambiguating 'Bs As' into Buenos Aires (06) vs CABA (02), listing partidos of a province, and obtaining ids required by other systems. It gives clear when-to-use context but never states when another sibling tool (e.g. buscar_localidad, normalizar_direccion) is the better choice.

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