catastro_estado

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool does. It discloses the testing method (three-pronged check against two hosts, canary) and the interpretation logic (distinguishes data error from IP block). It also adds context about 403s, going beyond a generic 'check status' description.

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 three sentences long and each sentence adds information: method, usage, and interpretation. It is compact and well-ordered, though the heavy use of technical shorthand ('RC', 'canario') might reduce immediate clarity. No wasted words.

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 tool is complex and has no output schema or annotations. The description explains the diagnostic approach and the meaning of differences, but it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a status code, a string, a boolean) or how to map the outcome to specific outputs. This is a notable gap for an agent that needs to act on the result.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the 'municipio' and 'provincia' parameters. It does not explain their role, accepted values, or how they affect the check. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is added, which is required given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 diagnostic function ('Control de tres puntas contra ambos hosts') and distinguishes two failure modes, but uses jargon ('RC que funcionó + RC inventada', 'canario') that requires domain knowledge. It is not a clear, straightforward statement of purpose like 'Check connection status'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Llamar antes de una tanda y cuando algo devuelva vacío' and 'Un 403 aislado no dice nada'. This clearly indicates when to use the tool and when not to rely on a lone 403, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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