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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only published entities are returned ('publicadas'), which is useful, but it omits other behavioral traits such as default pagination, how filters combine, result ordering, or response format. For a search tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant uncertainty.

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 sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse to be complete. It provides no information about filter usage, pagination, or the response structure. For an agent to use this tool effectively, more context is needed.

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 13% (only 'tipo' has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the 8 parameters, such as what 'query', 'pais', or 'tecnica' do. Parameters like 'limit' and 'offset' are self-explanatory, but most lack semantic guidance, making this a weak point.

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 purpose: 'Busca entidades' (search entities) and specifies the types (institutions, companies, collectives) and the source directory. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like buscar_profesionales and buscar_proyectos, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is implied by the description: when you need to search entities, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like buscar_todo, nor any mention of using obtener_entidad for retrieving a specific entity. The lack of exclusions or alternative references keeps it at an implied level.

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