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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the upstream source (apis.datos.gob.ar/series, INDEC) and the fact that no auth is required, which helps an agent know it can call it freely.

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 front-loaded sentences with the verb first; the example terms in the description duplicate the schema examples slightly, which is mild redundancy but not padding.

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?

For a simple keyword-search tool with only two params, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, data provenance, and auth status — everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The example keywords in the description mirror the schema's own examples and add no new syntax or format detail, so 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) and resource (Argentine government catalog of economic and social statistics time series) scoped to keyword lookup. The contrast with the sibling get_series (fetch by ID) is implied but never stated explicitly.

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 keyword search framing plus example terms implies this is the discovery tool, and the sibling get_series handles retrieval by ID, but no when/when-not guidance or alternative is named. Usage must be inferred from the naming convention.

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