enaho_geografia

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

The description discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: it saves a new dataset and leaves the original intact, and it warns when names are empty due to missing imports. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 with the primary action. It uses two short paragraphs: the first states what the tool does, and the second details a key prerequisite and its consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main behavior, output columns, side effects (new dataset), and an important prerequisite. It lacks explicit error-handling details, but the output schema and warnings cover most gaps.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the tool produces (cod_<nivel>, dominio_nombre, area) and by clarifying the dependency of the 'nivel' parameter on an external import for provincia/distrito. This deepens the semantic understanding of 'nivel' beyond its schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Descompone el ubigeo y anade nombres, dominio geografico y area' (decomposes ubigeo and adds names, geographic domain, and area). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like enaho_ubigeo_buscar by focusing on dataset enrichment rather than search.

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?

It provides clear context on when the tool works (packaged table covers 25 departments) and gives a prerequisite for province/district levels ('hay que importar una tabla oficial una vez'). It also explains the consequence (names come out empty) and that the tool warns, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for these cases.

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