Consultar las guías locales

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, consistent with a purely local read). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: at most 3 files returned, omitted files are named, and a low-relevance warning is emitted when no fragment matches at least half the query terms. It stops short of describing relevance ranking beyond that threshold.

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 search action and its scope are front-loaded, followed by result-cap behavior and then the priority rules; no sentence is redundant. It is somewhat long and dense, but each sentence carries distinct guidance, so the size is justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape (max 3 files, named omissions, low-match warning) and the trust ordering of sources. Combined with annotations covering safety and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter already documents accepted input forms, accent/stopword handling, and the list-all behavior when omitted. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, 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 and resource (search in local manuals/guides under docs/ with supported formats), which clearly separates it from fetching/downloading tools run by siblings like descargar_y_leer_documento. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'locales' scope rather than being routed directly.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: server/API questions prioritize the server manual because it reflects measured behavior, business questions (deadlines, fines, requirements) defer to the guides, and it warns that the official ChileCompra guide describes the promised API and may contradict the manual. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-trust guidance an agent needs.

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