solve_beach_code

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It only mentions accent-insensitive search for 'nombre' but lacks details on rate limits, required permissions, or return format. Behavioral traits like output structure or error handling are omitted.

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 very concise (3 short lines) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness. It earns a 4 for efficient use of words but not a 5 due to missing context.

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 the absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, pagination, or how to interpret results. A tool with 2 parameters and no output schema needs more descriptive context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and types, and the 'tipo' enum is implicit but not explicitly explained (e.g., 'playa' maps to beach name). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's enum values.

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 'Search beaches by name, province, or municipality,' which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_municipality_code', leaving ambiguity about when each is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools, which is a significant gap.

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