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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the data source (apis.datos.gob.ar/georef, INDEC), the fact that no auth is required, and the specific fields returned. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the call does without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler: purpose, return fields, and data source/auth are each covered in one efficient sentence. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only search tool, the description is complete: purpose, scope, return fields, data provenance, and authentication are all covered. The output schema handles return structure, annotations handle safety profile, and the schema documents parameters, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description restates that search is 'by name' and 'optionally scoped to a province', mirroring the query and provincia parameters, but adds no new semantic detail such as matching behavior, formats, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Argentine localities'), and clarifies the scope ('cities/towns', optionally scoped to a province'). It also lists return fields, making it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like indec-georef.admin.provinces or indec-georef.location.geocode.

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 clearly implies the use case: search localities by name, optionally restricted to a province. It provides context (Argentine localities, name-based search) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using the geocode tool for full addresses or the departments tool for administrative units.

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