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 discloses the return payload (sha256 plus public copy URLs) and the read-only nature of 'Busca', but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or whether sealed runs are immutable. Adequate but leaves real operational gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the search target, then the return contract. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what comes back (hash + URLs), which is what an agent needs to decide and act. Pagination and result-count behavior are the remaining gap but are minor at this complexity.

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 100% and the schema already gives use-case examples, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by enumerating what kinds of free-text values are meaningful (protein name, problem class, algorithm, solver), which explains the search's matching surface beyond the single example string.

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 scope: free-text search over 'corridas selladas', enumerating the searchable dimensions (protein name, problem class, algorithm, solver). It also says what a hit contains (sha256, public copy URLs). It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement ('para poder citarla y comprobarla' suggests verification/citation workflows), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as buscar_algoritmo_cuantico. The agent must infer the context.

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