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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact fields returned and the quota note ('No descuenta preguntas'), which tells the agent this call is cheap to repeat.

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-loads what the tool does, then return shape, then per-parameter meaning. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema and fully annotated safety profile, the description covers purpose, return fields, all parameters, and routing to siblings. 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters — and it does: `texto` with concrete Spanish examples, `portal` with its filtering role and referent tool, and `limite` with its 1–25 range. Nothing material is left undocumented.

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) and resource (catálogo de OpenArg) with a concrete scope ('más de 30.000 datasets de portales oficiales'). An agent can immediately tell this is a search-over-catalog tool and it is differentiated from siblings like describir_tabla/obtener_datos, which it names as the downstream consumers of results.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly: results' tables should be used with `describir_tabla` and `obtener_datos`, and `portal` filtering is done via `listar_fuentes`. Clear when-to-use context, though it never states a when-not-to-use condition.

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