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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it tolerates missing accents and the ñ, which affects query matching. It also instructs the agent to return URLs when citing, which is a usage directive rather than tool behavior, but still useful. No contradiction found.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose, then delivers two key behaviors (accent tolerance and URL instruction) in a logical order. Every word contributes; there is no padding or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description partially carries the burden of explaining what the agent receives. It tells the agent to return URLs, implying results include URLs, but doesn't specify result structure, pagination, or sorting. For a search tool with 3 parameters and a well-defined scope, this is fairly complete but could mention result format or limits on results. The limit parameter exists but its behavior is not elaborated.

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 67% (query and locale have descriptions; limit does not). The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, except the accent tolerance which is about query semantics. The minLength=3 is already in the schema. The description does not explain limit's range or default, but that's in the schema. Overall, the description adds moderate value, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing limit description.

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 specific verb ('Búsqueda de texto completo') and clearly delimits the resource scope: 'notas publicadas, jugadores y partidos de River Plate'. This differentiates it from siblings like get_player, get_matches, or list_articles, which target specific entities. It also adds a distinctive behavioral trait (accent/ñ tolerance) that further characterizes the tool.

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 when to use this tool: when a full-text search across multiple content types is needed, rather than fetching a known item. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion conditions, but the phrase 'Búsqueda de texto completo' and the scope give clear context. The instruction to return URLs when citing also provides practical guidance for the agent's response.

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