search_municipalities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that matching is accent- and case-insensitive, with a concrete example ('nunoa' finds 'ÑUÑOA'). It also uses the term 'fuzzy-search', implying approximate matching. This goes beyond a simple tautology and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a key behavioral detail. No filler or redundant information; every word contributes.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It states what the tool does, how matching behaves, and the optional region filter. The output schema covers return values, and uncertainty about ordering/pagination is acceptable given the presence of the limit parameter.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the fuzzy/accent-insensitive matching behavior for the query parameter. It also reinforces that region is an optional filter. This enriches the schema's bare definitions without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Fuzzy-search Chilean municipalities by name, optionally filtered by region.' The verb 'fuzzy-search' is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_municipios, which likely provides a full list rather than a name-based search.

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 the primary use case: when you need to find a municipality by name with fuzzy matching, optionally narrowing by region. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this tool for name-based search rather than listing all municipalities.

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