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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return fields (título, resumen, URL) and the relevance ordering, which is useful behavioral context, but omits pagination and does not disclose that the query is bounded to a closed directory beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences, with purpose front-loaded before the return-value note. Mild redundancy from brand naming, but no wasted phrasing.

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 usefully states what each result contains (title, summary, URL) and how results are ranked, which is enough for a 4-parameter search tool. It stops short of noting result limits or empty-result behavior.

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%, with every parameter documented in the schema (slug examples for tema, enum for tipo, limit bounds, and query examples). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so 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 (Busca) and resource (el directorio) plus the content types it covers (casos, skills, apps, herramientas, guías) and the language. An agent can tell this is the search tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like recomendar or ver_ficha.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as recomendar, temas, and ver_ficha available, the description gives no help deciding which to call, leaving the agent to infer that 'search' is the generic query entry point.

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