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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the two things that matter most here: the cost ('2 crédito(s)') and how to read an empty result set (address not in the official street index). It still leaves auth/precondition and any rate limits unstated.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by usage, failure semantics, and cost in a sensible order. Nothing is padding, though the parenthetical example list and the '(s)' formatting make it slightly heavier than needed.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool this covers a lot: accepted input shapes, returned fields including lat/lon, disambiguation strategy, empty-result meaning, and cost. The remaining gaps are non-essential context such as permissions and whether `max` limits candidates versus total results.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns a notch above that by explaining why provincia and localidad matter (ambiguity reduction) rather than just restating their types. However it refers to 'cantidad' as the result count while the actual parameter is `max`, a naming mismatch that can blur the two, and `departamento` is never discussed.

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 ('interpreta... normaliza... devuelve candidatos') and grounds it with three concrete input examples plus the exact output fields. It never names a sibling tool, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from buscar_calle or buscar_localidad.

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 real operating guidance: pass provincia or localidad when known to cut ambiguity, and when multiple candidates come back either disambiguate by localidad or ask the user. It stops short of the when-not side, i.e. it never says when to use buscar_calle or ubicacion instead.

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