catastro_buscar_paraje

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is local and makes no network calls, and that it operates on cached data. It also specifies that invented names should fall below the threshold, giving insight into matching behavior. However, it does not describe what happens if the cache is empty or the output structure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and key constraints. Every word contributes meaning, including the local/no-network note and the threshold behavior. No redundancy or padding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the search returns, how results are ordered, or the exact role of 'municipio' in scoping the cache. It also does not explicitly instruct to first run the population tools, though it implies their role. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It explains 'umbral' via the threshold behavior, but 'municipio' and 'texto' are not explicitly described beyond their names. The names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds limited meaning for two of three parameters.

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 by place name over already cached parajes. It specifies the resource (cached parajes), the action (búsqueda difusa), and differentiates from siblings by noting it is local and relies on cache populated by catastro_ficha / catastro_completar_parajes.

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 it: after other tools have populated the cache, for local fuzzy searching without network. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of caching and local operation gives clear usage context.

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