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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: result ordering favors local/regional content, content is Spanish, and each result carries title, date, summary, a citation address and the original outlet when syndicated. Only gaps are no mention of pagination or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool searches and scoped immediately to the source; the bilingual parenthetical is compact and useful for a Spanish-language tool. There is minor redundancy between 'Primero lo propio y lo de la zona' and the first sentence's local framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the attribution behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and existing annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ranking/pagination behavior and the tie-break against sibling news tools are left unstated.

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%, including the 'en castellano' constraint and the 1–20 range for cantidad, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description repeats the keyword/Spanish framing without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Busca noticias en Cadena Láser') and pins the scope to the Río Tercero portal plus national/international coverage, with keyword search and local-first ordering. Sibling tools like ultimas_noticias, noticias_de_localidad and leer_nota are not named, so differentiation relies on inference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 description implies the keyword-search use case and the local-first priority, which hints at when this tool beats browsing the latest news, but it never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g. use noticias_de_localidad for a specific town, leer_nota to open a result). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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