search-guarantees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (search) without describing how it behaves: no information about response format, pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 reasonably concise but inefficiently structured. The bilingual repetition ('| Buscar opciones de garantía de alquiler disponibles en Uruguay.') adds no semantic value for an AI agent and wastes space. The first part is clear, but the second part is redundant noise that doesn't earn its place.

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?

Given the tool's purpose (searching financial products) and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a search tool in a financial domain, more context about response format and limitations would be expected.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search available rental guarantee options in Uruguay.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (rental guarantee options), and geographic scope (Uruguay). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like search-insurances or search-loans, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The bilingual repetition adds no usage information, leaving the agent with no help in selecting this tool over similar search tools in the sibling list.

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