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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input (prefix/fragment) and output (exact names), which is helpful, but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, result size limits, or error handling. For a simple autocomplete this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences that lead with the core purpose and then the input-output contract. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it defines what the tool does, what input it accepts, and how the results relate to another tool. The lack of explicit return-format details is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'terme' with the description 'Prefix o fragment del nom de població'. The tool description adds only a restatement of the same concept ('Passa-hi un prefix o fragment de nom') without introducing new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the tool as an autocomplete for 'poblacions de surtdecasa.cat' and states exactly what it returns: the exact names accepted by the population filter of 'cercar_agenda'. This specific verb-plus-resource phrasing and the explicit connection to the sibling tool distinguish it from the other tools.

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 explains that the tool returns names accepted by the 'poblacio' filter of 'cercar_agenda', which indicates when this tool is useful: when populating that filter. It provides clear context and implies the workflow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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