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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return shape (título, resumen, tipo, id/slug, URL), the relevance ordering, and the empty-result behavior, which is real added context; it stops short of explaining scoring or how 'relevance' is computed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage and fallbacks; every sentence carries actionable information. It is slightly long with the branching follow-up/fallback instructions, but none are filler.

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 compensates by describing the return fields and ordering, and it fully covers when to invoke, what to do with results, and what to do when nothing is found. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents consulta, tipo (with enum) and limite. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameters, 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 (buscar) and precise resources (lecciones del curso, artículos del blog), and clearly distinguishes itself from the read/list siblings by being the keyword-search entry point. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it first when the user asks about a topic and the right page is unknown, names the follow-up tools (leer_articulo, ver_leccion/leer_leccion), and even prescribes fallbacks (synonyms/English, or ver_temario + listar_articulos) when results are empty. When-to-use, alternatives and failure handling are all covered.

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