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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-trivial behavior: case-insensitive ILIKE matching and the exact snippet window (50 chars before, 150 after). No pagination/result-cap behavior is described beyond the schema's limit field.

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 purpose sentence, followed by a compact when-to-use list, then return format and a routing hint. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 explains the return shape (date + snippet context window) and notes how to escalate to the full note. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and workspace_id (including the useful 'omit = all workspaces' note). The description adds only the implicit workspace scoping ('del workspace'), which adds little beyond what the schema states. 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 (busca/buscar) and resource (texto en el contenido de todas las notas diarias) with scope and matching semantics (ILIKE case-insensitive). An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like get_daily_note or search_documents.

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 'Usar cuando' block lists three concrete scenarios and real user phrasings, and the final line routes the agent to get_daily_note when a full note is needed. When-to-use, examples, and the alternative are all present.

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