Obtener Regiones de Colombia

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact number of regions (6), naming them explicitly, and describing the return format ('Lista de regiones con id, nombre y descripción'). This provides concrete behavioral details about what data to expect, which annotations alone don't cover.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It leads with the core purpose, immediately lists the specific regions, describes the return format, and provides two relevant usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The bilingual presentation (Spanish description with Spanish examples) is consistent and appropriate for the tool's context.

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, parameterless read-only tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description provides complete context. It explains what data is returned, gives concrete examples of the regions, and includes usage examples. Since there's no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return format. This is fully adequate for the tool's complexity level.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It instead focuses on what the tool returns, which adds semantic value beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools when the description adds meaningful context about outputs.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Obtiene las 6 regiones naturales de Colombia' (Gets the 6 natural regions of Colombia). It names all six specific regions (Caribe, Pacífico, Orinoquía, Amazonía, Andina e Insular), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_departments or get_natural_areas. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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?

The description provides clear usage context through two example queries ('¿Cuáles son las regiones de Colombia?' and 'Dame información sobre las regiones naturales'), which effectively illustrate when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as get_departments_by_region for a different granularity of information.

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