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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying the return semantics: up to `limit` results per content type, i.e. the response is partitioned rather than a single flat list of `limit` items.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The scope (which content types are searched) is front-loaded before the return-size detail, so an agent can parse purpose and payload shape immediately.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what is searched and how many results come back, and the annotations cover safety. It stops short of mentioning ordering or relevance ranking, which is the kind of extra context that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `q` and `limit` (including the per-category meaning and default of 10). The description's 'de cada tipo' reinforces the schema's 'por categoria' phrasing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (busca textual) and a specific resource scope (cross-content: cursos, posts do blog, episódios de podcast), which naturally distinguishes it from the single-resource siblings like get_course or list_blog_posts. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls just 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?

The phrase 'cross-content' implies this is the tool to reach for when searching across multiple content types rather than a single one, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and never names an alternative like list_courses or list_blog_posts for browsing.

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