Buscar capas de un geoportal (INAMHI o MAG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral rule (solo_wfs=true keeps layers with attribute data), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or portal availability/auth.

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 packed sentences with zero waste; the verb and resource lead, the source contents follow, and the operational flag closes. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a discovery tool.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers both sources well; the only gap is the missing hand-off to get_capa_geo_datos for actually retrieving layer data.

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 100%, so the schema documents every parameter and baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by explicitly mapping the two values of the fuente enum to their subject-matter contents and by clarifying solo_wfs, which directly helps an agent choose the right source.

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 (layers of a GeoServer geoportal) and enumerates the contents of both sources (inamhi: rainfall normals/anomalies, WRF grids, watersheds; mag: agro zoning, land cover, censuses, cadastre, agroclimatic risk). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_capa_geo_datos, which fetches data from a specific layer rather than discovering layers.

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?

Usage is implied by the content description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious sibling get_capa_geo_datos once a layer is found. The agent can infer the domain but not the workflow position.

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