search_tract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results include ALL touched regions, include the real citation, and exclude tracts with no verified connections. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The search criteria are front-loaded, followed by output behavior and exclusion semantics. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

The description covers the essential semantics for a search tool: criteria, result contents, and exclusion behavior. The main gap is the ambiguous 'y/o' combination of name and region_id, and there is no mention of pagination or error behavior, though an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does: 'name' is a substring match on name/abbreviation, and 'region_id' specifies a region the tract must touch. It also clarifies how region_id affects the output.

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 action ('Busca tractos reales') and the search criteria (name/abbreviation substring and/or region). It clearly identifies the resource and what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_region.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when searching for real tracts by name, abbreviation, or region. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as search_region or find_path.

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