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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds 'Exige acotar la consulta' as a useful scoping constraint, but it does not disclose additional runtime traits such as result limits, matching behavior, or response format. The added behavioral value beyond annotations is modest.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action, scope, and supported categories, and the second gives a meaningful constraint. There is no filler, repetition of schema enums, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the rich schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main selection context and the key narrowing requirement. It does not mention return-value behavior, and there is no output schema, but the schema already conveys parameter interactions and limits, so the remaining gap is small.

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 every parameter and its constraints. The description's 'por nombre, zona o categoría' restates the relationship between query, zone, and category at a high level but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca'), a concrete resource ('un sitio o servicio concreto de Alicante'), and explicitly enumerates supported categories, so an agent can understand the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like search_alicante, find_food, or find_transit_stop; differentiation is implied only through the category list.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to locate a specific Alicante place/service by name, zone, or category, and it adds the operative rule 'Exige acotar la consulta.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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