perfil_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that every figure carries its period, which is useful output context. However, it says nothing about data coverage, missing values, units, or failure behavior for an unknown area name.

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 metric list is front-loaded, the usage cue follows, and the argument note comes last, which is a sensible order. The metric enumeration is long but each item adds real information about scope.

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 structure need not be explained; the description covers purpose, typical question shape, and argument format. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior and the boundary against the more specific indicator and business tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single parameter is described as a state or municipality accepted either by name or by numeric key, with concrete examples ('Naucalpan', 'Jalisco', '15057'). That is the key parsing information an agent needs and it is absent from 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 states a concrete resource ('Perfil de un lugar') and enumerates exactly what is included: population by sex, indigenous share, foreign-born, unemployment, and business counts by sector, each with its period. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like consultar_indicador or contar_negocios.

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 gives a clear usage rule ('Úsala para preguntas generales') backed by two concrete example phrasings. The word 'generales' implicitly steers specific-indicator questions elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and no exclusion is stated.

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