Listando catálogo de ubigeos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the conditional id requirement (OBLIGATORIO with 'provi'/'distri'), the accepted nivel values, and the exact return shape including 'nota'. It never states auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only catalog lookup that is a minor gap.

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 with the resource description, then organized under clear Args/Devuelve sections. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical cross-references could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return dict shape ({'ok','nivel','catalogo':[{codigo,nombre}],'nota'}) and explains how the returned 'codigo' feeds other tools. For a 2-parameter catalog tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it enumerates the three 'nivel' values with their distinct semantics and explains 'id' as the parent-level code with concrete examples ('19' Pasco, '2503') and its conditional obligation.

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 geographic catalog) and enumerates exactly what it contains: departamentos, provincias y distritos. It also names the downstream consumers (buscar_contratos, resumen_georef), which cleanly separates it from every sibling in the list.

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?

Makes the use case explicit: it fills 'depa' in buscar_contratos and resumen_georef, and it spells out the conditional requirement of 'id' for 'provi' and 'distri'. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for the same job, so it stops short of a 5.

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