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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the search language, the repository coverage scope ('Universidad del Valle de Guatemala so far'), and the exact shape of results – helpful since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination, result counts, or rate limits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that is dense but efficient, delivering the corpus, language, coverage caveat and return fields with no filler. The trailing colon list is slightly heavy but every element carries information.

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 does well to name the return fields, which is the main completeness win. However, the five-parameter schema with low coverage leaves the agent guessing about to/limit/institution semantics and about result ordering or count, so it is only partially complete.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it adds almost nothing about parameters. Three of five parameters (to, limit, institution) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and even the year filter is only implied by the listed return field 'year', not stated as an input.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (full-text search) and a precise resource (theses, papers and reports from Central American university repositories), and it enumerates the returned fields. This clearly separates it from the numerous search_* siblings like search_news or search_legal, which cover entirely different corpora.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain and the '(Spanish)' qualifier, so an agent can infer it is for Spanish-language academic research, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative search tool is named for routing. With so many sibling search tools, the absence of any exclusion or alternative is a real gap.

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