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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the cost signal ('gratis'), telling the agent no purchase is triggered, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 purpose and facets, then examples; every element is functional. The Spanish/English duplication is intentional bilingual support rather than padding, though it does double the surface area.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the entry is sufficient: facets, examples, and cost are all present. The only missing piece is routing guidance relative to listar_estudios.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by supplying concrete example query strings ('seguros de auto', 'protector solar', 'hoteles Córdoba', 'dermatitis') that demonstrate the acceptable granularity and mix of category vs. proper-noun inputs, which the schema's 'Texto a buscar' does not.

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 resource (estudios) plus the searchable facets (industria, tema, producto, marca, país), which clearly conveys what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling listar_estudios, leaving an agent to guess whether keyword search or plain listing is intended.

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 parenthetical '(gratis)' implies this is the free browsing path, which hints at a when-to-use context, and the query examples imply keyword-based retrieval. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over listar_estudios or when to move on to comprar_estudio/ver_ficha, so usage is only implied.

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