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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Es solo lectura — no modifica datos' and that behaviour matches search_hipocampo, which covers the safety profile. However, it says nothing about pagination, default inclusion of pending memories, latency/rerank budget trade-offs, or any 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 short sentences with the purpose and read-only guarantee front-loaded, followed by a tight parenthetical enumerating options. No filler, though the enum listing is terse enough that it reads more as a hint than documentation.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the read-only claim is covered, but for a 19-parameter search tool with zero schema description coverage the description leaves most inputs undocumented and gives no guidance on defaults or interacting options. It is under-specified relative to the tool's 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 0% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it names filter prefixes (code:/category:/id:/after:), the format enum (compact/full/json) and the rerank enum (auto/always/never). The remaining parameters (k, ids, nivel, offset, explain, session_id, memory_type, rerank_top_k, snippet_chars, include_scores, include_pending, rerank_budget_ms) get no explanation beyond their self-describing names.

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+resource ('Búsqueda rápida en el Hipocampo') and explicitly identifies itself as a short alias of search_hipocampo with identical behavior, which lets an agent reason about the sibling relationship. It is clear what the tool does, though it never says what the Hipocampo corpus actually contains.

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 description signals it is read-only and behaviourally identical to search_hipocampo, which implies either can be used, but it never states when to prefer this short alias over the full-named sibling or any conditions/exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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