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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not burdened with that. It adds the return shape (id, title, url) and the fetch handoff, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or scope boundaries.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first establishes scope and result types, the second covers output and the next-step handoff. Nothing is wasted and the most important information leads.

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, the description helpfully states what results contain (id, title, url) and how to retrieve full text via fetch. Minor gaps remain around result count/pagination and scope relative to sibling search tools, but it is largely sufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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 the single parameter is fully described in the schema ('What to look for, in Spanish or English'). The description adds no syntax, language, or format meaning beyond that, 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 (Searches) and resource (DatosIA Central American public data), and enumerates the result categories: indicators/series, places, and a direct answer. However, given many overlapping siblings (search_data, search_places, find_indicators, list_places), it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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?

It implies a search-then-fetch workflow by telling the agent to 'pass an id to fetch for the full text,' which is useful chaining guidance. But it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like search_data, find_indicators, or search_places, leaving the selection to inference.

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