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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned fields (BOE id, rank, department, dates, official URL) and naming the upstream data source.

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 tight sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and where to go next. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the source API. Pagination is handled in the schema (offset, limit, no total count), so the description does not need to repeat it; only minor context like ranking semantics is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already carries its own description including the example and default values. The description's mention of title-word matching largely restates the query parameter rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (Spain's consolidated legislation) and scope (by words in the title). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling boe_law, which retrieves the full record by id, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to pass the returned id to boe_law for a full record or article text, which is a clear handoff condition. The title-only matching constraint is stated but never framed as an explicit 'use a different tool if you need full-text search' exclusion.

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