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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching is performed against the title and description fields, but does not state that the operation is read-only, or note anything about result limits or permissions. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying what is searched and where.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential search scope. It falls short only in not clarifying its relationship to sibling tools and not stating the read-only nature, which are minor given the verb 'Busca'.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'título o la descripción' loosely aligns with the query parameter's target fields but adds no syntax, format, or filtering detail 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Busca contenido') and narrows the scope to title or description matches, which distinguishes it from generic listing tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings list_content or content_stats, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_content or content_stats, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the keyword-search phrasing, matching the calibration for a definition with no when-to-use guidance.

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