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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result cap of up to 8 and what each result contains (descripción y enlace de descarga).

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 no waste; the core purpose and source are front-loaded, with category examples and the return shape following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return information (up to 8 templates, each with description and download link). For a single-parameter read-only search tool whose annotations cover safety, nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 the single parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates the searchable dimensions (estilo, nivel, rol) and adds slightly more examples, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb (busca) and resource (plantillas de CV en Word) with the scope of the source catalog (MissCV gratuito) and the facets it searches on (estilo, nivel, rol). The category examples make it unmistakable against siblings like search or alternativas_gratis.

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 usage context is implied by the description (search templates by style/level/role), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of an alternative sibling such as search. Nothing guides the agent to this tool over a generic search.

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