textokit_direcciones_ar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most operationally critical trait: 0.002 USDC per call paid via x402 on Base from the caller's wallet, so the agent knows payment and wallet auth are required. It says nothing about behavior on no-match, invalid input, rate limits, or whether results are ranked, which leaves meaningful gaps for a paid read tool.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the price/payment requirement, then the free alternative. Front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct, useful signal.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the main remaining need is what a 'candidate' looks like — there is no output schema, and the description never says whether results include coordinates, normalized street names, or match scores. Pricing is covered, return shape and no-match behavior are not.

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%, so direccion, provinciaId, and limit are already documented with ranges and patterns; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, such as what format direccion expects or whether provinciaId improves precision.

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 resource and source: 'Argentine address candidates from Georef' — an agent knows this is an address lookup/geocoding tool scoped to Argentina. It stops short of naming a verb (search, normalize, validate) or differentiating it from the address-adjacent siblings, so it is clear but not sibling-distinguishing.

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 only routing guidance is cost-driven: 'Free sample: textokit_sample' tells the agent there is a free alternative to try first. There is no statement of when this tool is preferred over textokit_cartas_ar or other Argentine-data siblings, and no exclusions or input-quality preconditions.

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