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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It discloses that results include source and link to the full record, and implies a read-only search behavior. It doesn't over-promise, but omits details like pagination or auth; for a simple search tool this is adequate.

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 sentences with the core action first, followed by data characteristics and practical use case. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so it's important that the description communicates expected results—it does ('Cada dato viene con su fuente y el link al récord completo'). It covers topics and use case, though it could mention result format nuances or limitations. Still, for a 2-param search tool, this is sufficient.

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% for both parameters (pregunta and limite), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter details, but it does enrich the understanding of what 'pregunta' should be via the example in the schema; no extra meaning needed.

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 uses a specific action ('Busca en el récord público verificado de Puerto Rico') and enumerates distinct content types (fuente primaria, contradicciones declarado-vs-entregado, citas ancladas al minuto), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like buscar_negocio or desiertos_salud.

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 explicitly states 'Ideal para verificar afirmaciones sobre agua, luz, FEMA, salud, presupuesto y promesas públicas de PR', giving clear use context. It doesn't formalize exclusions or alternative tool references, but the domain is well-scoped.

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