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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed corpus (openWorldHint=false). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the index covers only published guides, so drafts/unpublished items will never match. It says nothing about pagination via cursor or result ordering, so it remains a modest add-on rather than rich context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the scoping constraint placed before any elaboration. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter search with a cursor-based pagination loop and a category filter, the description gives no hint that limit/cursor drive paging or that category is an exact-match facet — an agent must infer the calling pattern from the schema alone.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents q, limit, and cursor itself; only 'limit' lacks an inline description. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 (busca) and resource (guías publicadas del catálogo de Jefe) with an explicit scope limiter (únicamente). An agent can distinguish it from get_jefe_guide (retrieval of one guide) by implication, but the description never names siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 only routing signal is that the search is restricted to published guides; there is no statement of when to choose this over get_jefe_guide or list_jefe_resources, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The published-only constraint describes scope, not usage context.

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