coordenadas_a_referencia_catastral

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the geographic constraint (Spain only) and the nature of the result (cadastral reference plus official address), but says nothing about latency, rate limits, failure modes for out-of-coverage coordinates, or what an empty/no-match result looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that first names the operation and then the outputs, with no filler. It is dense rather than padded, though the phrase 'en cualquier punto de España' and the parenthetical coordinate reminder slightly duplicate information already in 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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential picture: what goes in, what comes back, and where it is valid. The only real gap is that return semantics for no-match cases are unstated.

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 100% and both parameters already document decimal WGS84 with examples, so the description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating 'latitud y longitud WGS84'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names a specific operation and resource — 'Geocodificación inversa catastral' returning 'la Referencia Catastral y la dirección oficial' — plus the exact input (GPS coordinates) and geographic scope (Spain). An agent can distinguish it from consultar_referencia_catastral by the inverse formulation, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 scenario is implied (you have lat/lon and need a cadastral reference or official address), and 'en cualquier punto de España' implicitly bounds where it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the forward-lookup sibling consultar_referencia_catastral as an alternative.

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