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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds consistent behavioral detail: 'Retrieval only: nothing is summarised and no conclusion is drawn', plus the important epistemic caveat about absences. This goes well beyond the annotations and directly shapes agent expectations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core scope and return format, and it is well structured across scope, behavior, usage caveat, and sibling-tool routing. However, the Spanish and English versions repeat the same content nearly verbatim, adding length without new 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?

For a search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete: it names the corpus sources, the return fields, the absence semantics, the no-summary behavior, and the sibling tool for the next step. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It clearly explains what a query against the corpus should be, but it does not describe the `limit` parameter at all beyond its schema default, leaving pagination/result-count behavior implicit.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Busca en el corpus normativo de drones de España' and specifies the concrete sources (BOE, EU 2019/947, AESA/EASA, MITECO). It also distinguishes itself by saying it returns literal passages with title, URL, and date, not a summary or conclusion, and explicitly contrasts itself with flight_requirements.

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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to cite a norm with its source and date. It also gives an exclusion: for concrete flight procedures, use flight_requirements insteadaging, and it states the open-world caveat that absence from the corpus is not absence in the world.

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