Search Argentine Departments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the data source (`apis.datos.gob.ar/georef (INDEC)`) and the fact that no authentication is required. This helps the agent understand operational prerequisites without contradicting any annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function and scope, then gives return fields, and finishes with provenance and auth. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with only 3 optional parameters, full schema coverage, a complete output schema, and extensive annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, where the data comes from, and that no auth is required. Nothing essential is 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (`max`, `query`, `provincia`) are already well-documented. The description's 'by name, optionally scoped to a province' adds only a slight semantic hint that roughly mirrors what the schema already says, providing little extra value beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a precise resource ('Argentina's second-level administrative divisions (departments/partidos)'), and an optional scope ('by name, optionally scoped to a province'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `indec-georef.admin.localities` and `indec-georef.admin.provinces` by specifying the administrative level and return fields.

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 gives clear search context (by name, province scoping) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `indec-georef.admin.localities` or `indec-georef.admin.provinces`. The use case is implied through the 'second-level administrative divisions' phrasing, but there are no direct 'use this instead of X' instructions.

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