buscar_municipio

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful input behavior (partial names accepted, accents ignored, estado narrows the search) but does not explain multiple-match handling, matching rules, or any access/rate constraints; with an output schema covering returns, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then parameter notes; the four short lines all add information. The Args block is justified because the schema has no parameter descriptions.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and both inputs. It leaves some behavioral edge cases (multiple matches, exact matching) unspecified and no annotations exist, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 explain parameters, and it does: nombre is full/partial with accents ignored and examples, estado is optional with examples like 'Chihuahua' or '08'. It adds clear semantics beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify exact matching rules for estado.

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 ('Busca') and exact resource ('clave geoestadística (5 dígitos) de un municipio o alcaldía por su nombre'), so the agent can tell this is a geographic-key lookup rather than an indicator, business, or area tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides clear triggering context: use when a name is ambiguous or to confirm the clave before another query. It does not state when not to use it or name a specific alternative sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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