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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful context by enumerating example topics, which clarifies the scope of what is searchable. It doesn't mention return format or ordering, but the annotations lower the bar for behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Zero filler; every word contributes to the agent's understanding. Excellent structure.

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 read-only search tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., list of posts), but that is commonly inferred and not strictly required for invocation. The limit parameter and topic examples cover most usage needs. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or pagination behavior, but not critical for a simple search.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds value by providing example topics (TIA Portal, SCL, etc.) that help the agent understand what to put in the query parameter beyond the generic 'término de búsqueda'. This is meaningful supplemental 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Busca' = search), resource ('artículos del blog de Programación Siemens'), and scope (by topic), with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_post (specific post) and get_latest_posts (recent posts) by emphasizing topic-based search.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for searching blog articles by topic (e.g., TIA Portal, SCL), making it the obvious choice for keyword/topic queries. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from category browsing or fetching specific posts.

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