Search departments

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already provide robust safety information. The description adds the specific scope of the data (local administrative divisions), which is contextually helpful.

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 extremely concise, managing to convey the 'what' (search departments), the 'how' (by name/province), and the 'where' (Buenos Aires/CABA context) in a single, efficient sentence.

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 that the annotations cover safety and the schema covers data constraints (max results), the description is complete. It adds critical regional nuance that the structured fields cannot convey.

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 description provides no novel semantic information. It successfully lists the main search targets ('name and/or province'), but this is largely covered by the 'nombre' and 'provincia' fields in the schema.

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: 'Search departments'. It also provides extremely valuable context regarding specific regional names (partidos in Buenos Aires, comunas in CABA), which distinguishes it from generic geographical searches.

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?

It clearly lists the criteria for searching ('by name and/or province'), which guides the user on how the search function works. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools because of its focus on 'departments' rather than 'provinces' or 'localities'.

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