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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape ('Devuelve el total de coincidencias y una pagina de resultados') and provides genre mapping guidance. However, the mapping 'El regueton y el hip hop estan dentro de Urbana' introduces 'Urbana', which is not in the declared allowed genre list, creating an internal contradiction. The description also lists 'Salsa' as an allowed genre but later says salsa is within Tropical, which is confusing.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and use case, and most sentences carry useful information. However, it is longer than necessary and contains contradictory mapping sentences, particularly the 'Urbana' and 'Salsa' inconsistencies, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: when to invoke it, what filters are available, genre validation, fallback behavior, and the result summary. Gaps are relatively minor, but the internal genre inconsistency is a real completeness flaw that prevents a higher score.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds some beyond-schema guidance, such as using 'texto' for unknown styles and emphasizing that the listed genres are the only valid ones. This added value is partially undermined by the misleading 'Urbana' statement, which could lead an agent to pass a genre value that is not in the schema's documented list.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Busca emisoras de radio colombianas') and enumerates the search dimensions: ciudad, genero, frecuencia del dial, or texto libre. It also distinguishes the tool from station-playing siblings by specifying it is for cases where the user does not name an exact emisora. This is clear, specific, and not tautological.

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 explicitly says to use the tool when someone asks to listen to Colombian radio without naming an exact station, with concrete examples like 'vallenato en Barranquilla'. It also gives fallback instructions for unknown styles: use the closest genre or pass the style in the 'texto' parameter. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, and the when-not-to-use side 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.