BETAP: cultural places and local businesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'verified' and limited to three countries, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when lat/lng are supplied without radio_km.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Spanish sentence is a near-verbatim translation that doubles length without adding information. Intentional bilingualism, yet half the text is redundant from a specification standpoint.

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 7 all-optional parameters, the description does not explain the behavior of an empty query, whether it returns all results or none, or the default result cap. Read-only safety is covered by annotations, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 57%, with lat, lng and pais undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'by text, type, country or distance' loosely maps to q, tipo, pais and the lat/lng/radio_km cluster, partially compensating, but it adds no format details such as coordinate pairing requirements or the interaction between radius and distance search.

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+resource ('Search verified museums, libraries and cultural projects') and bounds it geographically (Mexico, US, Canada) and by search facets (text, type, country, distance). That resource type implicitly separates it from buscar_negocios, but it never names the sibling or obtener_lugar explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for cultural-venue lookup rather than business lookup, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over buscar_negocios or when to follow up with obtener_lugar, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, closed-world search. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are public BETAP profiles, each result links to a public page with menu, promotions, and WhatsApp, and coverage is geographically limited. It does not describe pagination, ranking, or rate limits, but it provides meaningful operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core search action and supported filters, then adds result behavior and coverage. It is mostly efficient, though the full Spanish translation duplicates the English content and adds length without new information for most agents.

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 six-parameter search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filter modes, result contents, and geographic coverage. It leaves some gaps around lat/lng pairing and pagination, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when it is useful.

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 67%, with q, ciudad, limite, and radio_km having descriptions while lat and lng have none. The description adds the conceptual grouping of searching by 'text, city or distance,' which helps map lat/lng/radio_km to distance-based search, but it does not clarify that lat/lng are a pair or explain constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: search local businesses with a public BETAP profile, including the category examples and supported filters (text, city, distance). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools buscar_lugares and obtener_lugar.

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 through the supported filters and the coverage note ('mainly Los Altos de Jalisco, Mexico'), which helps an agent judge when results are likely. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of buscar_lugares or obtener_lugar, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include related "sources", which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the return content appended; the bilingual duplication is redundant but each clause earns its place and there is no padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential: what it returns (a place plus its sources). Only edge-case behavior such as a missing id is left unaddressed, which is minor.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should ideally specify the id format (opaque string? composite?). It only says "por su id", adding little beyond the parameter name, though with one obvious required param the practical gap is small.

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 (get one place) and scopes it to an id lookup, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling search tools buscar_lugares/buscar_negocios. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it isn't a full 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?

"by id" implies retrieval of a known entity rather than search, which suggests when to prefer it over buscar_lugares. There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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