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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (artista, título, fecha, género, dónde escucharlo, ficha), which is real added context, but says nothing about read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or rate limits.

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 sentences, no filler, with the search scope front-loaded and the return payload second. Every clause carries information an agent did not already have from the schema alone.

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 simple three-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers both what goes in and roughly what comes back. Minor gaps remain around result behavior (empty results, ordering) but nothing essential to making the call 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the default of 8 and the max of 20 for `limite`. The description only restates the `consulta` semantics (artist, title or genre) and says nothing about `anio` filtering or how the two filters combine.

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 a precisely scoped resource ("catálogo de discos argentinos de INPUT") plus the three searchable dimensions. The resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_juegos or buscar_notas, though no sibling is ever named 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for finding music by artist/title/genre. There is no statement of when to prefer it over the sibling search tools, no exclusions, and no note about what to do when a search returns nothing.

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