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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it only covers published content, mandates citing the article URL, and instructs the agent not to fabricate when results are empty. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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 with no filler: the source scope comes first, then the usage condition and fallback rule. Every clause adds either scope, trigger, or behavioral constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains is complete enough to invoke correctly: sources, timing, citation, and empty-result handling are all present; only query/limit semantics are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters is documented in the schema. The description never addresses what 'query' should contain (keyword, natural language, Spanish?) nor what 'limit' controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 (busca) and a precisely scoped resource: the PUBLISHED help/knowledge base plus service fact sheets ('fichas de servicio'). The scope qualifier 'PUBLICADO' is a useful distinction, though no sibling tool (e.g., get_policies, get_service) is named to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: before answering any technical or operational question, with an enumerated topic list (correo, DNS, cPanel, FTP, SSL, WordPress, pagos, dominios). Also gives fallback behavior when no results are found. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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