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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: accent-insensitive full-text matching, 50-per-page pagination, the `total` field, and the critical `aviso_lista_cortada` signal meaning truncated results. However, it does not state the return shape beyond field names or describe ranking/ordering behavior, so a 3 is appropriate rather than higher.

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?

Long but front-loaded and well-organized: core purpose, then search behavior, then the tipo trap, then pagination, then citability, then exclusion. The multiple warning emoji and some repetition of the 'reglamentos are archived as decretos' point cost it a bit of tightness, but no sentence is irrelevant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names `total`, the 50-per-page pagination, the `aviso_lista_cortada` truncation flag, and `doc_id` plus leer_decreto for citation. Nothing an agent needs to search, paginate, detect truncation, or cite 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 every parameter including the numero format and page sizing. The description reinforces the type-filter trap for `tipo` and clarifies that `terminos` searches inside the norm text, which is genuinely useful, but it largely restates what the schema already says. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca DECRETOS y REGLAMENTOS del Poder Ejecutivo dominicano') and immediately scopes what it returns (número, Gaceta Oficial, PDF). It distinguishes itself from web search and from its sibling buscar_normas_reguladores by naming the excluded corpus explicitly.

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 an explicit routing rule ('Úsala EN LUGAR de una búsqueda web'), a concrete example use case (reglamento de Compras y Contrataciones), a warning against the tempting tipo='reglamento' filter, and an explicit exclusion routed to buscar_normas_reguladores. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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