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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a search/read operation and enumerates filter dimensions, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), result structure, or how filters interact with each other. The description adds some context about the directory but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. It immediately conveys the verb and resource, then lists filter categories. No redundant or filler content.

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 and 8 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and filter categories, but omits pagination details, result format, and edge cases like what happens with no filters. For a search tool, it is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps in understanding.

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 63%, so the description does not need to fully compensate. It restates filter types (país, localidad, idioma, campo, técnica) and introduces 'ERIHS' context, but most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. Parameters like 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned in the description, and their semantics are left to inference from names.

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 profesionales publicados en el directorio de humanista.digital (personas de humanidades digitales).' It uses a specific verb ('busca'), specifies the resource ('profesionales'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting people in the digital humanities directory.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching for professionals in the humanista.digital directory. It lists filterable attributes (free text, country, locality, language, ERIHS field/technique), giving an idea of use cases, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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