search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns relevant excerpts with document and page references, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any limitations, error conditions, or the read-only nature, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact argument list. It front-loads the main action ('Busca semântica') and avoids redundant wording. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 description covers the core purpose, parameter meanings, and return summary (excerpts with document/page). An output schema exists, so full return structure is handled there. It lacks guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but for a simple search tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by providing a clear Args block explaining each parameter: query (question/topic), top_k (number of results, default 5), and discipline (optional filter). This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb 'Busca' (searches) and identifies the resource 'acervo de PDFs' (PDF collection), also noting the semantic nature of the search. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cross_topic_search', so a 4 is given instead of 5.

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 implies usage: when a semantic search over the PDF collection is needed. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives like 'cross_topic_search'. The optional 'discipline' filter suggests context, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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