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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds behavioral nuance by disclosing the free-plan limitation: only corporate roles such as administradoras and auditoras are searched. It also sets expectations about historical and current charges without conflicting with the annotation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add only one relevant restriction afterward. No filler or repeated annotation 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 read-only person search with an output schema, the description covers the main invocation path and the plan restriction. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented persona_id parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Only 'nombre' is described in the schema and reinforced by the description; 'persona_id' has no schema description and is not mentioned anywhere. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it does not. It also does not clarify that both parameters are optional.

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 a specific action ('Busca una persona por nombre') and a concrete result ('devuelve sus cargos vigentes e históricos, con las empresas vinculadas'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, all of which are company-focused, while this one is person-focused.

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 provides clear context: use it when searching a person by name to obtain current and historical positions and linked companies. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the sibling set and person-vs-company distinction make the use case evident.

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