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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write-like, non-idempotent operation. The description adds critical behavioral context about latency and timeout handling, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or exact error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and then the latency/fallback constraint. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter synchronous AI endpoint, the description covers the main operational risk (latency/timeout) and provides a fallback. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned filters or authentication needs, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 single required parameter 'texto' is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 transformation (natural text to filters) and names the POST endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or suggest.

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?

It provides clear context for the synchronous path (18–20 seconds) and a fallback condition: when it times out, use POST /api/ia/jobs. This is an explicit when-not/alternative, but it does not compare against sibling tools or state when this is preferable to other search-related tools.

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