Catastro: parcel at coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation behavior: the fallback to match='nearby' with a distance_m field when the point is not on a parcel. It says nothing about rate limits or upstream failure modes, but for a read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the edge-case behavior. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description instead flags the one response variant that matters (nearby match plus distance_m). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is 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 100% and both parameters (latitude, longitude) carry WGS84 labels plus Spain-bounding min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cadastral parcel and address') with an explicit geographic scope ('at a point in Spain'). It is readily distinguishable from the sibling catastro_coordinates_from_reference, which performs the reverse lookup, without opening either schema.

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 second sentence gives the operative condition of use: if the point falls on a street or square, the result set changes to nearby parcels. It clearly frames the input context but never explicitly names the alternative tool (catastro_coordinates_from_reference) for the reverse direction.

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