Buscar en Colombia

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds minimal value. It mentions the tool 'attempts to find information,' which hints at potential incompleteness but doesn't elaborate on limitations like accuracy or coverage. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement. However, it includes an 'Ejemplo de uso' section that, while helpful, slightly reduces conciseness. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of search results) and doesn't address how it differs from sibling tools, which is crucial given the context of many specific retrieval alternatives.

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 'query' well-defined in the schema. The description adds examples (e.g., 'Busca Medellín') that illustrate usage but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 as a general search tool for Colombian departments, cities, or tourist places. It uses specific verbs ('find information about') and resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its many siblings like get_cities or get_tourist_attractions, which appear to be more specific retrieval tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_cities, get_tourist_attractions) that seem to fetch specific data, the description lacks any indication of when this general search is preferred over those targeted tools, leaving usage context unclear.

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