Buscar en la doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds useful context beyond them: results are returned ranked with type, title, a reference (operationId / error code / URL) and an excerpt, and the search is lexical rather than semantic. No pagination or ranking-order caveats, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then return shape, then example intents. Efficient and free of filler, though the example-query list is slightly loose prose.

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 compensates by describing the result fields and ranking, and the parameter schema is fully documented. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results; only sibling routing is left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and version (including the v2-default / v1-legacy guidance and enum). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the return fields, 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+resource: 'Búsqueda léxica en toda la documentación' and enumerates the coverage (endpoints, errores, guías, flujos). The lexical qualifier helps an agent distinguish it from semantic or targeted lookups, but it never names or contrasts any sibling (e.g., get_endpoint or explain_error) for direct lookups.

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?

"Útil para '¿cómo publico un producto?', 'rate limit', 'cursor', 'idempotencia'" gives concrete query intents, which clarifies when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling covers narrower needs (single endpoint detail, error explanation).

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