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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it confirms no account or authentication is needed and describes the response shape and the follow-on `fetch` workflow. Minor tension: it queries an external public corpus while `openWorldHint` is false, though a bounded BOE index can reasonably be treated as closed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then scope/auth, then the next action. Every clause carries information — no filler and no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them; it also covers authentication and the follow-up call. For a single-parameter read-only search tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the sibling-routing gap as a minor omission.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's 'Búsqueda en lenguaje natural' wording without adding syntax, length limits (maxLength 200), or query-construction tips, so it contributes nothing new about the parameter.

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 and resource: natural-language search over BOE judicial auctions, plus the ChatGPT deep-search compatibility and the return shape (`results` with `id`, `title`, `url`). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling `buscar_subastas`, leaving an agent unable to tell which search tool to pick without opening both schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('Pública, sin cuenta') and an explicit next step: use `fetch` with the returned `id` to read the record. What is missing is exclusionary guidance — no statement of when to prefer this over `buscar_subastas`, `buscar_por_codigo`, or `similares`.

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