consultar_referencia_catastral

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (dirección exacta, coordenadas WGS84, superficie m², año de construcción, uso principal, enlaces al visor), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about error behaviour for malformed or non-existent referencias, latency, rate limits, or whether the data is a live official query.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool does and the input identifier, the second lists exactly what comes back. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient because it enumerates the returned fields and the coordinate system. The remaining gap is failure behaviour for invalid or unknown referencias, which matters for an agent deciding how to recover.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter, its 14 vs 20 character formats, and gives two examples. The description repeats the same 14/20 character distinction and adds no new meaning such as validation rules or how the 20-character cargo/control suffix changes results. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: consulta la información física y geográfica de un inmueble o parcela a partir de su Referencia Catastral, in Spain, and enumerates the returned fields. The direction of the lookup (referencia → datos) is clearly the inverse of the sibling coordenadas_a_referencia_catastral, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it already holds a Referencia Catastral and wants physical/geographic data. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a pointer to coordenadas_a_referencia_catastral for the reverse case (coordinates → referencia) or to the WMS tool for layers.

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