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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint by specifying that results are limited to 'publicadas y públicas' (published and public) posts, but it does not clarify pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a match looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint ('publicadas y públicas') and read-only nature are stated before any elaboration, and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 straightforward search tool with rich schema documentation, explicit annotations, and three well-named siblings, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on result ordering or pagination behavior, though page/per_page are documented in the schema.

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 all four parameters (query, page, per_page, post_type) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that the main input is a text query, adding no syntax, formatting, or filtering details beyond the schema; baseline 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 ('entradas publicadas y públicas') with the search mode ('por texto'), which clearly separates it from get_post (single post) and get_latest_posts (chronological listing). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.

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 phrase 'por texto' implies the tool is for text-based search, and 'solo lectura' signals a safe read operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria (e.g., use get_latest_posts when you want recent posts without a query).

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