catastro_por_coordenada

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses OVC and hints at a caching preference, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid coordinates, or whether any side effects occur. It is better than nothing but lacks substantial behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key usage hint. This is appropriately concise.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter explanations, output format, and edge-case behavior. It provides some usage guidance but is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.

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%. The description does not explain the meaning of x, y, or srs, nor their units or coordinate system. It provides no parameter-level insight beyond the bare schema, so it fails to compensate for 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 clearly states the tool's function: it resolves which parcel exists at a given point using the OVC service. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool catastro_en_radio by explicitly mentioning a preference condition, making its specific role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefiere catastro_en_radio si el municipio está cacheado', which tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, and by implication when to use this one (when the municipality is not cached). This is clear contextual guidance.

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