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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context: results include a one-sentence summary, a status, the date last checked against the official source, and a link. It does not discuss limits or freshness caveats beyond the per-result date, but it meaningfully supplements 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 two sentences and front-loads the core action and resource. The parenthetical topic list is long but directly helps an agent understand the searchable domain, and the second sentence concisely describes the result shape.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough domain context to call the tool correctly. It explains the source, covered topics, and result contents. The remaining gap is the lack of relationship guidance to sibling tools, which is more a usage-guideline issue than a completeness failure.

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 query, lang, and limit are already well documented. The description reinforces that the navigator is trilingual and that results match the searched procedures, but it adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema. This fits the baseline 3 when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: it searches Guía Extranjeros, a trilingual navigator of Spanish procedures for foreigners. It also enumerates covered topic areas, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_guide or about_guia, so it falls short of a 5.

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 search-oriented wording implies the tool is used to find matching guides, and the schema query examples reinforce that. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing advice relative to get_guide or about_guia.

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