comparar_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool uses the 'último valor' of an indicator, which is useful recency context, but it does not discuss permissions, read-only behavior, error conditions, or any limitations. Because an output schema exists, return-value details are appropriately out of scope.

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 front-loaded with the core comparison action, followed by a compact Args section that covers both required parameters. It is appropriately sized and contains little waste, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose relative to the small parameter set.

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 comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers both required inputs and the key special value ['estados']. The main remaining gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools such as consultar_indicador and perfil_area.

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 the parameters, and it does: 'indicador' accepts a catalog key or numeric INEGI ID, and 'areas' accepts names or keys with the special token ['estados'] for all 32 entities. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though concrete ID or key examples for 'indicador' would help further.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare the latest value of an indicator across multiple states or municipalities. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from single-area or profile-oriented siblings, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 comparison scope implies that this tool is for multi-area comparisons rather than single-indicator lookup, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of consultar_indicador or perfil_area. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance are given.

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