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

With no annotations, the description does add real behavioral context: it discloses that only public content is searched and that results come back with citable URLs. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or what happens with an empty match, which matters for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 the scope front-loaded and the return-value note second; nothing is wasted. It could be sharpened by naming the sibling tools, but the length is right.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the corpus and the shape of results. Missing are query semantics and result-set behavior (limits/pagination), which an agent needs to call it reliably.

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?

The single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description — no hint whether 'query' accepts natural language, keywords, or filters. Only one parameter is at stake, so the gap is bounded, but the description does not compensate for it.

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 (busqueda) plus the corpus ('contenido publico de AtexRadio') and enumerates the entity types covered (guias, categorias, productos, servicios). That general scope implicitly separates it from search_guides/search_products/search_services, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 word 'general' hints that this is the broad cross-type entry point versus the entity-specific search tools, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer from the word 'general' alone that narrower siblings should be preferred for single-entity lookups.

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