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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive hints, it discloses two things annotations cannot: the cost model (1 crédito por página) and a platform-conditional behavior (CUIT omitted in ChatGPT). It also lists the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. Missing pagination limits or total-result behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target entity, followed by return shape and cost. Every clause carries information, though the return-field list is a long run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates return fields and the credit cost, and it points to the follow-up tool. Only the pagination parameter's meaning is left unexplained, a minor gap for a 2-parameter search tool.

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 50%: q is documented in the schema with the minimum length, while pagina is undocumented. The description only alludes to paging via 'por página' and gives no default, max, or page-size semantics, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 verb and resource ('Busca personas... por nombre') and enumerates the exact role types it indexes (directores, socios, gerentes, síndicos, apoderados), which lets an agent separate it from buscar_empresas. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating context: name-based lookup, 1 crédito por página, and a workflow cue that persona_id feeds ficha_persona. No explicit exclusions or 'use X instead when...' statement, so it is not fully complete.

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