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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description discloses the retrieval-only contract (nothing summarised, no conclusion), the shape of each returned passage (title, URL, date), and an important epistemic constraint about how to report absence from the corpus. That is substantial context beyond what the structured hints provide.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, retrieval contract, citation rule, and alternative are ordered well. The main inefficiency is the full Spanish/English duplication of every clause, which roughly doubles length, though it appears to be a deliberate bilingual accessibility choice rather than padding.

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, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, and how results should be cited, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing, aside from parameter-level detail captured elsewhere.

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% for both parameters: `query` and `limit` carry only titles and a default, with no description text. The description adds no meaning for either parameter (no query format, no expected phrasing, no effect of `limit`), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though it has two parameters to support.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it names exactly what corpus is searched (BOE, Reglamento UE 2019/947, AESA/EASA guides, MITECO) and what is returned (literal passages with title, URL, date, not summaries). It also names the sibling `flight_requirements` and the scenario that selects it, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 ("Úsalo para citar la norma con su fuente y su fecha") plus an explicit alternative with its triggering condition ("Para saber qué trámites exige un vuelo concreto, usa `flight_requirements`"). It additionally gives a citation-behaviour rule for absent results, which is operative guidance, not filler.

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