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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: determinism (same query, same results), no network access, no stored state, and concrete limits (200-char query, 25-result cap). Some of this restates what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declare, which keeps it from a 5, but the limits and no-network disclosure are genuine additions.

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?

Front-loaded and well-structured with labeled When/Not for/Limits sections, but the entire content is duplicated in Spanish and English, roughly doubling length with no added information for an agent reading either version.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description still supplies the scope, routing guidance, and limits an agent needs to call this discovery tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds that keywords may be in Spanish or English and that the family filter is optional, which is meaning beyond the enum field itself. The 200-character and 25-result limits duplicate maxLength/maximum already in the schema, so it isn't a full 5.

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 and resource ("searches the 492 tools of this server") plus the mechanism (keywords in English or Spanish plus an optional family) and what it returns (best matches with input schemas). This is immediately distinguishable from the ~490 sibling operation tools it searches over.

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?

Explicit "When: the right tool for a task is not known yet" and "Not for: running a tool (tools/call does that)", naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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