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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds key behavioral context: results are unverified quotes at 'nivel_verificacion = fuente' and the tool is meant for citation with right to reply, not fact assertion. It also states the exact return fields (fragment, speaker, date, minute link), which is valuable given no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, appropriately sized and front-loaded: action and resource first, then return format, then caveat and usage examples. Every sentence adds distinct value; the example queries are compact and concrete.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return format and source scope, and gives concrete usage examples. For a read-only search tool with rich annotations and full parameter coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 all four parameters. The description's example queries reinforce how to phrase 'pregunta' but do not add detail for 'desde', 'frente', or 'limite' beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb 'Busca' and a specific resource: complete transcripts of Puerto Rican public hearings, interviews, and analysis programs from named sources. It distinguishes itself from fact/verification tools by explicitly stating it returns what someone said, not a verified fact.

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 explicit example queries and states the intended use: 'Sirve para citar textual con derecho a réplica, no para afirmar hechos.' The when-not-to-use is clear, but no sibling tool (e.g., verificacion_estado) is named as the alternative for verified facts.

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