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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only *published* entries are searched, but says nothing about result ordering, whether matching is full-text or prefix, or case/diacritic handling.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler, though it is perhaps too short given the missing behavioral detail.

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 read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the core requirement (search published blog entries by text, optionally by category) is conveyed. Only result ordering and the undocumented limit remain unclear, which are minor.

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 67%, so query and category are already documented, and the description restates them without adding format details (e.g., matching behavior for query, slug expectations for category). The limit parameter has no schema description and is not addressed in the description at all.

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 (buscar) and resource (entradas publicadas del blog de VITUR), which clearly separates it from sibling tools covering eventos, noticias, or empresas. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It implies text search with an optional category filter, but never tells the agent when to use this over vitur-ultimas-noticias or the event-search siblings, nor what happens when a category isn't given. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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