Buscar municipio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the match 'tolera acentos y mayúsculas' and that the return is a 5-digit code. However, it does not specify behavior for ambiguous names (multiple municipios with the same name) or no-match cases, which are realistic with Spanish municipalities. This is a partial disclosure, not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct and essential piece of information: what it does, when to use it, and its matching tolerance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description needs to cover purpose, usage, and return value. It does cover these, along with matching tolerance. However, it omits details about return format (e.g., plain string vs. structured object) and edge cases (duplicate names, not found). These gaps mean the description is not fully complete for an agent that may need to handle such situations.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter 'nombre' with a clear description and example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds the note about tolerance for accents/case, which is more about matching behavior than parameter format. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca municipios españoles por nombre y devuelve su código INE de 5 dígitos.' It uses a specific verb ('busca'), a resource ('municipios españoles'), and the expected output ('código INE de 5 dígitos'). This distinguishes it from the sibling weather tools (prediccion_diaria, observacion_estacion, etc.) as a lookup/geocoding utility.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Úsala PRIMERO cuando el usuario dé un nombre de pueblo/ciudad, porque las predicciones necesitan el código INE.' This tells the agent when to invoke it (before any prediction tool) and why (the predictions depend on the INE code). It effectively implies the alternative tools but doesn't exclude when not to use it, which is acceptable given the clear priority context.

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