inei_get_provinces

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

No annotations provided; description discloses return fields (id_geografia, ubigeo, nombre, ccdd, ccpp). Since tool is read-only and simple, additional behavioral details (e.g., empty list handling) are not critical.

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: purpose, required parameter with example, and return fields. Front-loaded, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given only 1 required parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, input, and return fields. Could mention potential empty results or error conditions, but overall adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Parameter 'ccdd' is fully described in schema with min/max length and examples. Description adds context by showing typical codes ('15' for Lima) and linking to source tool. Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all provinces in a Peruvian department' with specific verb and resource. It requires a department code and provides examples. Sibling tools (inei_get_departments, inei_get_districts) are differentiated by scope.

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?

Explicitly tells user to provide 'ccdd' (2-digit department code) and how to obtain it from inei_get_departments. Could improve by stating when not to use (e.g., for districts) but context is clear.

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