Ver muestra de datos de una capa de geoportal

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it caps results at 20 features, drops geometry, returns only attributes, and explicitly labels itself a preview rather than a spatial query. Annotations already confirm read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the call actually does.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then immediately scoped with limitations. Every clause earns its place by clarifying the preview nature, the source, and the unsupported spatial operations.

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 read-only preview tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing behavioral context: preview scope, geometry removal, and absence of spatial filters. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully documents capa, count, format, and fuente. The description reinforces that capa comes from search_capas_geo and that the tool is limited to 20 features, but it adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Sample up to 20 features' attributes from a WFS-enabled layer.' It distinguishes this preview tool from a spatial query by explicitly saying there is no bbox or filters and geometry is dropped. It also identifies the source layer from the sibling tool search_capas_geo.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to preview attributes from a layer obtained via search_capas_geo, and not for spatial queries because bbox and filters are unsupported. It does not name a specific alternative tool for full spatial querying, but the exclusions and source dependency are explicit enough for routing.

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