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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond by disclosing the return shape ('ids to use with fetch') and the absence of cost ('free'), which the annotations do not provide. It still says nothing about result limits, pagination, or ranking 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?

The English sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and the fetch handoff before the parenthetical detail. The fully duplicated Spanish translation roughly doubles the length without adding new information, which is unnecessary token cost for an English-reading agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note that results are ids to be passed to fetch is load-bearing and correctly included. For a single-required-parameter search tool, the remaining omissions (result count, no-match behavior) are minor.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'query' with a concrete example. The description adds the facet vocabulary (industry, topic, brand, country) that tells the agent what kinds of strings are valid, which is a modest addition over baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: searches Lightning's AI-visibility studies, and spells out the supported facets (industry, topic, brand, country) plus the extra content types ('metricas', 'como-comprar'). It clearly states the output handoff (ids for fetch). It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical Spanish sibling buscar_estudios, nor from listar_estudios, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

It gives a usage chain ('returns ids to use with fetch') and a cost/safety signal ('free and read-only'), which implies retrieval-first workflows. However it never states when to prefer this tool over buscar_estudios, listar_estudios, ver_metricas, or the dedicated como_comprar tool that its own description says it partially covers — leaving real ambiguity.

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