Obtener Áreas Naturales Protegidas

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about filtering capability and the return format (name, category, department), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanation, return value description, and usage examples. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and a simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the optional filtering parameter, and the return format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of returned areas (e.g., fields beyond name, category, department).

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%, with the parameter 'department_id' well-documented in the schema as an optional integer for filtering. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only repeating that it filters by department without providing additional context like valid department IDs or filtering behavior specifics.

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 verb ('obtiene' - gets/obtains) and resource ('lista de áreas naturales protegidas de Colombia'), specifying it retrieves protected natural areas in Colombia. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific resource type, unlike other tools that handle airports, cities, departments, etc.

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 clear context for when to use this tool - to get protected natural areas in Colombia, optionally filtered by department. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for related queries.

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