catastro_por_poligono_parcela

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

The description discloses that provincia/municipio must be provided in OVC text format, with examples ('A CORUÑA', 'MUXIA'), which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention permissions, return value, error behavior, or other potential side effects. It adds partial transparency but not a complete picture.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical, containing no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only necessary details about input format. Every element earns its place.

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 lookup tool, the description conveys what it does (resolves RC), the key input format constraint, and the underlying service (OVC). It lacks details about return structure or error handling, but these can be partially inferred from the tool name and the explicit mention of 'RC' as the output. Given the tool's low complexity, this is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

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 provides explicit format guidance for provincia and municipio (OVC text), but leaves poligono and parcela completely unspecified beyond their string type in the schema. This adds partial value, but fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions on two of the four required 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: 'Resuelve la RC desde polígono/parcela vía OVC' – resolving a cadastral reference from polygon/plot via a specific service. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like catastro_por_coordenada (by coordinate) or catastro_ficha (by cadastral reference).

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 phrase 'desde polígono/parcela' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the user has polygon and parcel identifiers. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous, and the tool name reinforces the use case.

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