catastro_ficha

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the host and its resilience to blocks, clarifies that the surface data is informative ('informativa; la oficial es la del GML'), and specifies accepted RC formats and missing data types. This provides rich behavioral context beyond a simple action.

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 a single dense sentence packed with information, but it remains relatively concise given the breadth of content. It uses parentheses and colons to organize details efficiently. While it could be better structured with separate sentences, every clause 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input formats, limitations, and an example. It lists return fields (paraje, clase, uso, etc.) but does not describe the response structure or error behavior, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains parameter semantics. It defines RC formats ('RC de 20. Acepta RC de 14') and gives concrete examples for provincia_del/municipio_mun ('Muxía: del \'15\', mun \'53\''). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 purpose: 'Consulta la sede electrónica' with specific data fields (paraje, clase, uso, superficie gráfica, RC). It is specific about what it returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, though the 'ficha' (record) nature and detail imply a targeted lookup.

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 provides usage context: it mentions the host differs from the OVC ('distinto del OVC — sobrevive a sus bloqueos'), indicating when this tool is preferable. It also warns about what is not available ('NO existe por vía pública: valor de referencia... ni titularidad') and explains parameter code formats. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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