catalogo_ubigeo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the return contract ({'ok', 'nivel', 'catalogo': [{codigo, nombre}], 'nota'}) plus the mandatory-id rules — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating error handling, auth needs, or that the operation is read-only.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly separated Args and Devuelve blocks; each line adds information rather than restating the schema. Slightly bulky as a block, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter catalog tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the parameter semantics, the downstream integration point, and the return shape — everything an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: 'nivel' is enumerated with its three values and their meanings, and 'id' is described as the parent-level code with concrete examples ('19' Pasco, '2503'). This goes well beyond the bare 'Id'/'nivel' titles in the schema.

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 — the SEACE contracts API geographic catalog of departamentos/provincias/distritos — and immediately links it to the downstream tools it feeds ('llena depa en buscar_contratos y resumen_georef'). An agent can distinguish this catalog tool from the search/listing siblings without opening any schema.

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 'nivel' options are spelled out with the condition that selects each one ('provi' requires a parent department id, 'distri' requires a province id), and the description explains its role as the code-source for the other tools. It gives clear context but names no explicit when-not-to-use case or alternative tool.

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