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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that answers are 'official' and that search is word-based, but leaves the important behavior unstated: what happens when `consulta` is omitted or empty, and whether matching is substring, token, or accent-insensitive.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note second. Efficiency is good, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, so the bar is modest. Still, an agent cannot tell from the description whether the result is a single answer, a list of Q&A pairs, or a ranked search result, nor what an omitted `consulta` returns.

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 coverage is 0% (the single property only declares type string, title and empty default), so the description carries the burden. It does add real meaning by saying `consulta` is optional and performs word-based search, but it omits matching semantics and the empty-string behavior that the default value hints at.

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 concrete resource and behavior: frequently asked questions with their official answer, plus an optional word-based search. It is clear enough to know what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the topical siblings (funciones, integraciones, precio_y_demo, seguridad_y_datos), which appear to be the same kind of content split by category.

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 only usage signal is that `consulta` is optional and searches by words, which implies a browse-all vs. search behavior. There is no statement of when to prefer this general FAQ tool over the topical sibling tools, and no indication of when it should not be used.

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