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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains the default ordering when no text is given ('devuelve los últimos añadidos') and enumerates the returned fields (id, título, año, estudio, país, url_ficha). This is a clear value add for an agent that needs to know what to expect.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second explains no-text behavior, third explains return values and alternative tool. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 search tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains return fields and the detail alternative. It also covers the no-text behavior and filter combination. While pagination (limite) is not mentioned, the schema provides that detail. Nothing critical for invocation 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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description maps the filters to their parameters (título, tienda, país del estudio, año) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. It omits any mention of the limite parameter. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Busca) and resource (videojuegos), and distinguishes its scope from the sibling tool ficha_juego by noting that detail fields are handled elsewhere. The description also specifies the available filters (título, tienda, país del estudio, año) and the return fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use ficha_juego for detail (tiendas, editoras, ids externos) and provides the condition (when you need those details). It also states the behavior when no text is provided, which serves as a usage guideline. This covers when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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