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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: a hard result cap of 20, the exact fields returned, and the important limitation that no phone/email is exposed and contact lives only behind the ficha link. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 verb and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by searchable dimensions, return shape and limitations. Every clause carries information (result cap, fields, contact restriction, non-bookability), with only mild verbosity from the parenthetical enumerations.

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 must describe returns, and it does: up to 20 providers with name, rubro, pueblo, indicative price or 'Consultar', score, reviews and ficha link, plus the total count. The one gap is pagination or how to retrieve beyond the 20-result cap.

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 texto, portal and categoria, and the enum values carry the category semantics. The description restates the three search dimensions without adding syntax, format or precedence rules, 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 concrete verb and resource ('Busca en el directorio completo de la guía') and enumerates the exact provider types covered, so an agent knows precisely what is searched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling buscar_experiencias, leaving ambiguity about which of the two search tools fits a given query.

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 implicit in the enumeration of searchable dimensions (portal, categoría, texto) and there is one useful exclusion ('estos prestadores no se reservan a través de este servidor'), which steers the agent away from booking via this tool. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over buscar_experiencias or detalle_experiencia, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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