Obtener Departamento Específico

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns detailed information (población, superficie, capital, descripción), which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the schema. The example usage is helpful but adds length. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the schema overlap reduces conciseness.

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's low complexity (read-only, idempotent, with annotations covering safety), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource, parameters, return details, and usage examples. However, it could improve by clarifying output format or error cases, but annotations reduce the need for extensive behavioral disclosure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and name) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameters in the 'Args' section and providing examples (e.g., 'Antioquia', 'Cundinamarca'), but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as interaction between parameters or default behavior.

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 with a specific verb ('Obtiene información detallada') and resource ('departamento específico'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_departments' (plural) by specifying it retrieves information for a single department. The title 'Obtener Departamento Específico' reinforces this distinction.

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 usage by providing example queries ('Dame información sobre Antioquia'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_departments' (which likely lists multiple departments) or 'get_departments_by_region'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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