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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds substantive details: out-of-country behavior with null fields, no street or street-number results, and a cost of 1 credit. It still does not mention authentication requirements or full response structure, but it covers the key operational traits.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and each sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter reverse geocoding tool without an output schema, the description explains the main return values, the out-of-country case, and the cost. It could be more complete by naming all output fields, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `lat` and `lon` with ranges and Argentine bounds. The description restates that the input is a point but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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: given a lat/lon point, return the Argentine province, department/partido, and municipality with official INDEC IDs. It also clearly excludes street-level results, so an agent can tell what the tool does and does not return.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it for reverse geocoding a coordinate into Argentine administrative divisions. It notes that outside-Argentina points return `en_argentina=false` with null fields, but it does not explicitly name when to use this instead of siblings such as `buscar_division` or `buscar_localidad`.

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