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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the UPSTREAM_UNAVAILABLE error semantics and the explicit instruction not to report it as 'no studies exist', the mandatory surfacing of crisisReferral before anything else, mandatory attribution/license preservation, and the educational-not-clinical framing.

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?

Purpose, corpus scope, and returned fields are front-loaded before the operational rules, and every clause carries actionable content. It is delivered as one very dense paragraph, which slightly hurts scannability of the distinct rules (filter, privacy, errors, crisis).

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?

An output schema exists so return fields need not be spelled out, yet the tool still flags the 'notice' field's meaning, downstream obligations (attribution, links), privacy restrictions, error handling, and crisis routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and safely 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 carry the load and largely does: it supplies the default for limit ('sem ele, 5'), restates the max of 10, and gives content-level guidance for query. It omits the query maxLength of 200 from the schema, a minor gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Busca... trechos da base científica curada do Namandu') and precisely scopes the corpus (Portuguese abstracts translated from open-access CC BY/public-domain mental-health articles). This implicitly separates it from search_psychoeducation_content and list_wellbeing_practices, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 concrete usage direction: how to phrase the query ('Escreva a consulta com os temas'), what must NOT go in it (names, contact, identifying data), the optional limit filter, and how to react to UPSTREAM_UNAVAILABLE or crisisReferral. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or stating when to prefer this over search_psychoeducation_content.

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