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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result cap (hasta 10 resultados), the result shape (id, título, URL), and the id→fetch handoff for full content.

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 short sentences, zero waste: scope first, then return shape and cap, then the follow-up action. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence 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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (max 10 results, id/title/URL fields). For a single-parameter, read-only search tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' including the Spanish-language example. The description adds no format, syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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) plus the exact resource scope: the public pages of MissLicita (guides, bidding documents, Ley 32069 glossary, general pages). This scope distinguishes it from dataset-specific siblings like buscar_licitaciones or buscar_contratos_menores without needing to open either 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?

Gives explicit follow-up routing: 'Para leer uno completo, usa su id con fetch' – a clear when-to-use-this-then-that instruction. It does not, however, state when to prefer this site search over the domain-specific search siblings, so the boundary is only implied.

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