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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete output contract ('Devuelve título, fecha, extracto y URL') and a precise content scope, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss empty-result behavior or search semantics, but for a simple read-only search this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately clarifies the topical scope, and closes with the output shape. The topic enumeration is long but purposeful, since it defines the tool's search domain.

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 with only two parameters, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The schema covers parameters and constraints, annotations cover safety, and the description provides the output fields despite there being no output schema. The only missing piece, explicit sibling routing, is minor because the resource and scope are already unambiguous.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both 'tema' and 'limite' with examples and constraints. The description's topic list indirectly informs 'tema', but it adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Busca en el blog de Autoridad Digital artículos...' and it enumerates the exact topical coverage. It also states what the tool returns, which makes its purpose unmistakable. The sibling tools (comparar_webs, consultar_glosario, escanear_geo) are clearly different in scope, so the tool is easy to distinguish.

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 intended use is implied by 'Busca en el blog de Autoridad Digital artículos...', so an agent can infer it should be used when the user wants blog articles on SEO, GEO, schema, etc. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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