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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (id, título, URL), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or freshness beyond "noticias recientes".

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 short sentences: the first says what is searched, the second says what is returned. The key scoping information is front-loaded and there is no redundant text.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the sources and return fields adequately. However, the undocumented query parameter and the absence of any result-limit or ranking context leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required `query` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing about query syntax, language handling, matching behavior, or expected input format, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 verb ("Busca") and two named sources ("FirmaRED Hoy" and "las verificaciones públicas"), which lets an agent distinguish this combined search from the more narrowly scoped sibling tools `hoy` and `verificar`. It is clear and concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the sources named; the description never says when to use this combined search instead of `hoy` or `verificar`, nor when not to use it. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess at routing between siblings.

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