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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds that the response is a compact list of canonical URLs with optional entityId or resolveWith, and explicitly notes the absence of deep pagination. This is useful non-obvious context that goes beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with 'BUSCADOR: úsalo PRIMERO' and uses three dense sentences to convey purpose, return format, downstream usage, and limitations. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to interpret the result fields, which downstream tools to call, and what it cannot do. The workflow context is complete, and no critical operational detail is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both query and limit well. The description reinforces that queries are free-form natural language but doesn't add new parameter-level details. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: a natural-language search over Alicante topics that returns canonical URLs. It explicitly differentiates the tool from siblings by naming it the entry point and listing concrete categories it covers. The mention of downstream tools like get_current_state and resolve_entity further clarifies its unique role.

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 explicitly instructs 'úsalo PRIMERO' for any natural-language query about Alicante, and frames the result as a decision aid for which 1–3 URLs to request next. It also states exclusions — no complete inventory and no deep pagination — which helps the agent avoid expecting unsupported behavior.

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