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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read-only operation. The description adds context about searching by topic but does not mention any potential behavioral traits like result ordering or pagination (though limit is handled in schema). No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies what is searched (blog posts) and how (by topic). The absence of output details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 100%, with both parameters (query and limit) described. The description adds the nuance that query is a search term and limit controls max results, but this is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as description adds only minimal extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it searches blog posts on Siemens programming by topic, with specific examples. The title 'Buscar artículos del blog' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post (single post) and search_courses (courses).

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 indicates it is used for searching by topic, with examples of topics. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the description imply it's for generic topic searches, not for specific post retrieval or course searches.

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