Buscar negocios cerca de una coordenada

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Busca' clearly signals a read/search operation rather than a mutation, and the description adds useful context: nationwide coverage via 'todo Mexico', the authoritative source 'DENUE de INEGI', and proximity-based behavior via 'cerca de una coordenada dada'. It does not mention result shape or pagination, but for a lookup tool 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 two compact sentences: the first states the operation, source, scope, and criterion; the second states practical use cases. Every clause adds value and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple 4-parameter lookup with complete schema descriptions, the description provides enough context about the data source, scope, search criterion, and use cases for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema means return details are not explicitly stated, but the notion of finding businesses in a zone strongly implies a list of matching establishments.

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%, with latitud, longitud, condicion, and distanciaMetros all described, including the default and maximum for distance. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond reinforcing the idea of a coordinate and a zone, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Evidencia: 'Busca establecimientos economicos de todo Mexico en el DENUE de INEGI, cerca de una coordenada dada.' The description specifies a concrete verb, target resource, national scope, and spatial criterion. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools based on state, name, or detail.

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?

Evidencia: 'Util para encontrar negocios, competidores o proveedores en una zona especifica.' This gives a clear when-to-use context: discovering nearby businesses, competitors, or suppliers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as denue_buscar_por_nombre or denue_buscar_por_estado.

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