Estaciones hidrometeorológicas cercanas (Salto Grande)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (the CTM network, both river banks) and says the response includes each station's published variables plus its latest reading. It does not say how 'nearest' is computed, whether a search radius applies, or what happens with sparse coverage.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the data source and the core operation, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the single sentence leaves little room for the missing operational detail.

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, and annotations cover safety. However, with three undocumented parameters including an unexplained 'cantidad' and no guidance on choosing this tool over related weather/river siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient for 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the first two parameters via 'más cercanas a un punto' but never names lat/lon, states their format or CRS, or mentions 'cantidad' at all — the default of 5 and its meaning are left entirely undocumented.

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 concrete resource and operation: nearest stations in the CTM Salto Grande network to a point, returning each station's variables and latest reading. The basin/scope detail ('cuenca del río Uruguay, las dos orillas') makes the dataset identifiable. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like clima or nivel_rio, which also deal with weather/river data.

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?

No indication of when to pick this over clima, nivel_rio, or ubicar_punto, all of which appear in the sibling list. There is no statement of prerequisites, expected radius, or what happens when no station is near the given point.

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