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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real value: it discloses the return payload (USD reference price or quote status, canonical link, Venezuela availability). It does not cover result ordering, behavior on zero hits, or the meaning of the limit cap, leaving behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the searchable identifiers before the return values. No filler, though the return-value clause is long enough that a second sentence for limits would have helped without bloat.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job on inputs and outputs. Missing: behavior of the limit parameter, result ordering, and empty-result handling — modest but real gaps.

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 50%; the query parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description's mention of familia/categoria largely restates it. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places — the description never mentions result count, default 8, or the maximum of 20.

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 resource ('radios y repuestos Motorola del catalogo de AtexRadio'), and enumerates the searchable identifiers (SKU, part number, familia, categoria). This clearly separates it from a fetch-by-id tool like get_product, though it never names a sibling 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 by the search-by-identifier framing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_product, fetch, or the other search_* siblings. An agent can infer it is a lookup tool, but nothing tells it when the alternative is preferable.

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