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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world search operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the sources searched and describing the return format: short snippets with title, excerpt, and link to an exact YouTube minute or webpage.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the return format following immediately. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains sources and return values. It could be slightly more complete by stating result limits or ranking behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 single "pregunta" parameter is already fully documented as a natural-language query with length limits. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax, ranking, or filtering beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ("Busca") and specific resources ("vídeos gratuitos de MIDE" and "web de Mide360"). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools.

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 description implies the tool is for searching content across MIDE videos and the Mide360 website, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It also does not mention when to prefer the sibling tools recomendar_formacion or ruta_de_aprendizaje.

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