perfil_municipio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses coverage caveats (energy certificates only for Cataluña and C. Valenciana), accuracy flags (exacta=false when the matched street differs), proximity radii (under 1 km, three nearest facilities), and the 20-item batch limit. It omits failure behavior, missing-data handling and any auth/rate 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?

There is little filler, but the whole description is one semicolon-chained run-on with the key structural fact (solo_codigos) and the batch limit buried at the end. It is dense rather than front-loaded, which makes it slow to parse for an agent.

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 only two parameters, the description does the heavy lifting on return contents and conditional fields (location, parcel info, nearby facilities). What it lacks is any statement about behavior when data is unavailable for a municipality or when a lookup fails.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: 'municipio' is documented as accepting a bare name, INE/SIGPAC/DIR3/NIF codes, an address string, or 'lat,lon', plus an array of up to 20, and solo_codigos is explained as returning only codes and location. Both parameters gain meaning well beyond their types.

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 names the resource (a municipality, by name/code/address/coords) and enumerates exactly what comes back: cross-system codes, padrón, income, unemployment, crime, tourist housing, home sales and appraised value. That makes the purpose concrete without opening the schema. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'codigos', which likely overlaps on the code-lookup portion.

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?

Accepted input forms (name, INE, SIGPAC, DIR3, NIF, address, 'lat,lon', or up to 20 in one call) and the solo_codigos shortcut imply when the tool is a fit, and the note about addresses/coordinates unlocking location and nearby POIs hints at scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative 'codigos' tool.

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