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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (slug, título, descripción, URL) and the fact that results are relevance-ranked summaries rather than full documents — important with no output schema.

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 filler: the first defines scope and content, the second defines output and the handoff to get_page. Everything an agent needs is front-loaded.

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?

Only one required parameter, rich annotations and a description that spells out the returned fields in lieu of an output schema. The one gap — limit behavior — is minor and bounded by the schema's min/max.

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 coverage is 67%: query and kind are documented in-schema with an example and enum values, while limit has no description anywhere. The description reinforces the kind split and the topical scope of query, but adds no syntax, ranking or limit behavior, so the baseline 3 for mostly-covered parameters stands.

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 two concrete resources — landings por rubro and blog articles on portalharas.com — with topical examples that pin down the content domain. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page by noting that full text is fetched elsewhere, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Explicit routing to get_page for full text gives a clear 'use this when you only need the relevant pages' rule. The split between blog and landings by rubro is also signposted, though the description never contrasts itself with list_pages, leaving one sibling's boundary implicit.

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