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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool combines two article systems and that each result indicates its source ('Cada resultado indica su 'fuente''), which are useful non-obvious behaviors. However, it does not mention any side effects or additional behavioral details, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key context. Every phrase adds value without being verbose.

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 should clarify return values. It mentions each result includes its source, but it omits ordering, pagination, per-source limit behavior, and the structure of the result set. It provides a partial picture, making it minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'idioma' has a description). The tool description does not compensate: it does not explain 'query' or 'limit_por_fuente' semantics, nor how they interact with the dual-system combination. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching articles in the Radar section of humanista.digital, and specifies the dual-system behavior (Spanish 'articulos' and English 'articles'). This distinct resource differentiates it from sibling tools like buscar_noticias_observatorio or buscar_entrevistas.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for Radar articles, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like buscar_todo or other search tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided, though the name provides a clear hint.

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