buscar_web_oficial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'con URLs oficiales', which are meaningful behavioral guarantees, and notes the live-search nature. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication, or failure modes, but for a simple search tool it adds sufficient context beyond a bare description.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding either the core purpose, a specific usage detail, or a safety/source guarantee.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the search results look like, but it doesn't. It also doesn't address what happens when an adapter is missing or how to handle failures. However, it does cover purpose, usage context, and read-only nature, making it minimally viable but not 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?

The schema has one parameter 'consulta' with 0% description coverage, and the description never explicitly explains that 'consulta' is the search query or provides any format/constraint details. The meaning is inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 action: 'Buscar en vivo en el sitio oficial cuando existe adaptador' (search live on the official site when an adapter exists). It also adds a specific variant for Rosario's official HTML search, which helps distinguish it from sibling search tools like buscar_fuentes and buscar_noticias, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives conditional usage context ('cuando existe adaptador') and a location-specific behavior ('En Rosario usa el buscador HTML oficial'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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