Consultar Catastro

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value with new context: it is an external telematic query with a persistent local SQLite cache (30-day TTL) and it does not alter local files or state. The cache TTL is genuinely useful because it warns the agent results may be up to a month old, though it says nothing about network failures or auth needs.

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 the purpose, then uses labeled sections for usage and side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information – no repetition of the schema or annotations, no filler.

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 described. The description covers purpose, when-to-use, ordering in the workflow, and behavioral side effects, which is complete for a single-parameter read-only query tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the expected format (14 or 20 alphanumeric characters) with an example. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource (consulta telemática a la Sede Electrónica del Catastro de España) and enumerates exactly what it returns (dirección oficial, municipio, provincia, año de construcción, superficie catastral). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like determinar_zona_climatica without opening any 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 'Cuándo usar' section gives an explicit trigger (first step for any property in common Spanish territory) and a prerequisite condition (when the Referencia Catastral is available), plus the downstream purpose (auto-fill administrative data for the certificate). Nothing is left to inference.

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