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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: it returns a snippet plus URL per guide and expects a subsequent read via leer_guia, which shapes how the agent should consume and act on the results.

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 sentences with zero waste: the search action and return format come first, and the follow-up instruction second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so succinctly (relevant guides with snippet and URL). The intended workflow with leer_guia is stated; only pagination/ordering behavior of results is 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 coverage is 100%, with 'consulta' and 'maximo' both documented in the schema including range and default. The description adds no further parameter semantics, 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 en la documentacion') plus the return shape (guias relevantes con fragmento y URL). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as consultar_referencia or listar_guias, so an agent must still infer which search-like tool to pick.

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 prescribes the follow-up step: 'Despues, lee la guia con leer_guia', establishing a clear two-step workflow with leer_guia. It gives no condition for choosing this over consultar_referencia or listar_guias, so the guidance is directional but not exhaustive.

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