obtener_departamentos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation against a public API and states the data is official, implying no authentication and no side effects. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple public lookup this is not a critical omission.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. The conditional behavior (all vs. specific query) is communicated clearly in two short sentences.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool successfully: it states the data source, the resource scope, and the two usage modes. It does not describe the return format or matching semantics, but these are not essential for basic correct invocation.

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 the parameter description already explains that 'nombre' is optional, is a keyword, and that omitting it returns all departments. The tool-level description essentially repeats this same guidance without adding new parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool obtains official Colombian department information and distinguishes two modes: returning all departments or querying one by name. The verb 'obtiene' and the specific resource make the purpose unambiguous. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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 description explicitly explains when to omit the optional 'nombre' parameter (get all departments) and when to provide it (search/query a specific department). This gives an agent a clear usage rule. There are no alternative tools to contrast with, so no exclusion guidance is necessary.

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