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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful non-schema facts: 'Sin clave' (no API key required) and the returned fields ('número, asunto, criterio y enlace'), but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ranking.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and query scope, the second carries auth and output facts. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and confirms no key is needed, which is adequate for a read-only search tool. However, it omits `limit` semantics and any notion of result count or pagination, leaving the definition slightly under-specified for a two-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. 'por tema o texto' partially explains that `query` accepts either a topic or free text, but the `limit` parameter (1–20) is never mentioned and there are no format or length hints, leaving real gaps.

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 precise resource ('resoluciones y criterios del Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)'), plus topical scope examples (IVA, IRPF, sociedades, procedimiento). This clearly separates it from siblings like consulta_dgt or texto_normativa, though it never names an alternative 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?

The description says what can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never routes the agent toward or away from sibling tools such as consulta_dgt (DGT criteria) or buscar_codigo. Usage is only inferable from the topical examples.

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