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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the credit cost per page and what each result contains. It adds operational context without contradicting the 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?

Two tight sentences: action, return fields, and cost. Every clause carries information and the most important qualifier ('por nombre') is front-loaded.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and the cost model. It leaves pagination/result-envelope details to be inferred from the schema, but nothing essential blocks invocation.

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 describes 'q' as a name with a minimum length, and the description adds the type of people being searched. However, 'pagina' has no description beyond its name and minimum, and the description only hints at pagination via 'por página,' so it does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage.

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 action ('Busca personas') with targeted roles (directores, socios, gerentes, etc.) and the returned fields (CUIT, nombre, cantidad de empresas vinculadas). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like buscar_empresas, which search a different resource.

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 makes the usage context explicit: search people by name and get identifying data. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the strongest 5-level guidance, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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