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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: default open-only filtering, match-score-then-closing-date ordering, anonymous access with rate limits raised by a free AndesPass key. However, it never explains what the audit block, retrieved_at or include_original_evidence actually return, and the rate-limit magnitude is left vague.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the query-language advice, and the sentences are dense with operational detail rather than filler. It runs long and drifts into return-value and audit-field explanation, but nearly every sentence carries actionable guidance.

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?

Covers the workflow role, query construction, synonym behavior, empty-result interpretation via audit.index_last_synced_at, and auth/rate-limit posture — a lot for a search tool. The gap is the four undocumented parameters, which matter for response shaping and limit control.

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%, so the description must carry the load: it does well for query (Spanish keywords, one concept per word, accent-insensitive, synonym expansion via Andes) and include_closed. But limit, response_mode, preferred_language and include_original_evidence go entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ("find ChileCompra public tenders matching a need") plus scope (only open tenders by default). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_tender_detail as the required follow-up, so an agent knows this is the discovery step rather than the detail step.

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?

Explicitly says "Use this first" and "Call get_tender_detail before deciding anything," giving both the entry-point role and the downstream handoff. It also gives the condition for the closed-tender variant ("set include_closed=true for history") and warns that "one concept per word is best" with accents irrelevant.

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