cross_topic_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects. It merely states the basic search action, leaving the agent to infer safety and behavior from the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the key purpose in the first sentence and an added usage hint in the second. It avoids redundancy but is somewhat minimal, though this is not a significant flaw.

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 has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for full contextual understanding. It lacks parameter semantics, explicit alternative guidance, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 description maps 'tema' to query and 'múltiplas disciplinas' to disciplines, but it does not mention the top_k_per_discipline parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for missing parameter documentation, leaving a key parameter vague.

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 a cross-topic search across multiple disciplines with a specific verb ('busca transversal') and resource (theme in multiple disciplines). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_documents by focusing on cross-discipline concept connection.

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 explains that the tool is useful for connecting concepts across different course modules, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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