enaho_ubigeo_buscar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that 'la respuesta indica a que nivel corresponde cada acierto' and that the base table covers 25 departments with optional imported tables. This goes beyond 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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the core function, providing a practical use case, and explaining the response format and data coverage. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers essential context: the reverse search nature, the ubigeo format, and the data coverage limitation. However, it omits any mention of the 'limite' parameter behavior and does not address ambiguous or no-match cases, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema describes 'nombre' with an example but leaves 'limite' without any description. The tool description does not explain the meaning or effect of 'limite' (e.g., that it controls the number of results). With schema coverage at only 50%, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics, resulting in a clear gap.

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 starts with 'Busqueda inversa: nombre de lugar a codigo de ubigeo' which is a specific verb+resource combination, clearly indicating a reverse lookup. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other sibling performs ubigeo lookup. The scope is clear: converting place names to codes, with the added detail about the six-digit structure.

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 statement 'Util para filtrar una region sin salir a buscar el codigo a mano' provides a clear use case. It also notes the prerequisite that provinces and districts appear only if an official table was imported, offering context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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