mcp-colombia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching two sources and filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing key filters in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a 7-parameter search tool. It covers the what and where but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, or error cases. It's adequate as a basic overview but has clear gaps for agent invocation.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some filter criteria (ciudad, precio, habitaciones, zona), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline is 3, but the description slightly enhances context, warranting a 4.

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 states the tool searches for apartments and houses for rent or sale in Colombia, specifying the sources (FincaRaíz and MetroCuadrado) and filtering criteria. It uses specific verbs ('busca', 'filtra') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are about finance, e-commerce, and travel, not real estate.

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 implies usage for real estate searches in Colombia with specific filters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools overlap in functionality, so differentiation isn't needed, but guidance on prerequisites or constraints is absent.

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