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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard cap of up to 10 results, the fields returned (id, título, URL), and the follow-up read path via fetch. It does not mention ranking, language, or whether results can be empty.

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, zero padding, with the content scope front-loaded and the read-next instruction placed last. Every clause either defines the searchable corpus or explains the return and follow-up, so nothing is wasted.

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 usefully documents the return shape and the 10-result cap, and it sets up the fetch handoff. Minor gaps remain (result ordering, pagination or lack thereof, empty-result behavior), but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 query parameter is already documented in Spanish with an example ("carta de renuncia"). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Busca en las páginas públicas de MissCV") and enumerates the corpus it covers: guías, plantillas, documentos laborales, habilidades por oficio y artículos del blog. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch by explaining that fetch is for reading a result in full. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent explicitly: search here for public pages, then use the returned id with fetch to read a full document. That covers the primary alternative-tool decision, but there is no stated exclusion (e.g. what this does not search, such as private/user content) or mention of the other similarly named siblings like buscar_plantilla.

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