locate_in_polygons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: it does not trust the Closed flag and instead calculates ring closure, reporting the gap. This goes beyond what the schema shows. It could mention side effects, but given its analytical nature and presence of an output schema, this is adequate.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core function. The parenthetical example (7 of 25 polylines closed) is useful but slightly verbose. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and unique logic, but with 0% parameter coverage and 5 parameters, it is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but key parameter semantics are still missing.

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 only hints at polygon_layer and point_layer through 'poligonos' and 'etiquetas', but does not explain limit, min_area, point_type, or their defaults. This leaves users guessing about key 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 uses a specific verb ('Cruza' - crosses/intersects) and resource (polygons with labels). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'entities_near' or 'extract_attributes' by focusing on polygon-label spatial intersection. The phrase 'Motor de la auditoria de superficies' adds domain context.

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: it is the engine for surface audit, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough context to infer the primary use case but lacks exclusion criteria.

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