Población y viviendas de una localidad (INE)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: accent-insensitive matching, multi-row return when the name spans several departments, and descending-population ordering with a cap. What is missing is what happens on a no-match (empty result vs. error).

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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the data and time frame, then the matching rule, then the disambiguation and listing modes. No filler sentences; each clause carries load-bearing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers all three parameters and both calling modes. For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool this is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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% and all three parameters carry bare titles, so the description must compensate — and it largely does: accent-insensitivity and disambiguation for `nombre`/`departamento`, and the cap semantics of `cantidad`. It does not state what an empty `nombre` default does, leaving the implicit listing mode to be inferred from the departamento clause.

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 names the specific resource (población y viviendas 2023) and scope (localidad uruguaya) with a clear retrieval verb, and it distinguishes itself from every sibling, none of which handle locality population/housing data. An agent immediately knows what data comes back and at what granularity.

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 lays out two concrete call modes: pass `nombre` to look up a locality (optionally with `departamento` to disambiguate), or pass only `departamento` to list its localities sorted by population up to `cantidad`. The conditions for each mode are explicit, though there are no exclusion cases or sibling alternatives to steer against.

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