Buscar encuestas y censos en ANDA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the microdata/no-microdata routing behavior; it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result ordering, so it is adequate but shallow beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence plus two terse routing fragments, all front-loaded: scope first, then the sibling to use for non-microdata entries, then the natural next tool. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, disambiguation and the follow-up tool. What is missing is only minor detail about what query terms match or how results are ranked.

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 limit, query and format are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or enum guidance beyond that, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (INEC's ANDA catalog of surveys and censuses) plus scope (437+ entries, broadest INEC index). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_inec_estadisticas, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing cues: it is the broadest index, entries lacking microdata point to search_inec_estadisticas, and the follow-up step is get_anda_survey_info. It does not state an explicit when-not condition, but the alternative is named and the workflow is implied well enough to act on.

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