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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value: accent-insensitive Portuguese matching, and the result-shape behavior that indicators appear only on page 1 while content is paginated.

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 sentences, no waste, with scope and the accent-insensitivity front-loaded before the result-shape note. 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly explains the return shape (indicators vs paginated content). Only the relationship between page/pageSize and the indicators-only-on-page-1 rule could be spelled out more fully.

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 100%, so q, page and pageSize are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the page-1 constraint on indicators, which touches pagination but no other parameter meaning.

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 (busca) and enumerates the resources searched: boletins, pílulas, glossário de conceitos, artigos de metodologia, plus indicator panels matched by name. This clearly separates it from the list_* siblings, though it never names one explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a text search across content types. It does not say when to prefer this over list_bulletins/list_concepts or get_concept, nor does it give exclusions. The note that panels appear only on page 1 is useful contextual guidance.

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