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

The description discloses that this is a read-only site-wide search and what it returns, including page metadata, answer passages, and the date each page was read. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds search-scope and result details without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by result details and an explicit use case. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter site search with read-only annotations, the description covers scope, return format, and when to use it. It lacks output schema but voluntarily describes the result shape, so an agent has enough to call and interpret the 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?

Both query and limit are fully documented in the schema, including min/max and example query strings. The description doesn't need to repeat parameter semantics; it stays at the schema baseline.

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 names the action (search the whole site), enumerates the content areas, and states the return shape (page title/section/URL plus matching text passages and read date). It also contrasts with classifieds searches, which separates it from sibling tools like search_rentals and search_used_cars.

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 gives an explicit use rule: use it for any question that is not about classifieds and to decide where to direct the user. It doesn't list sibling names, but the 'avisos' exclusion plus the overall 'whole site' scope provides practical guidance.

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