quick_hipocampo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It states the tool is read-only, has no side effects, and behaves identically to search_hipocampo. It also describes the return format as plain text with relevance scores and metadata, which is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections for behavior, usage, args, and returns. While somewhat verbose, every sentence contributes useful information, and the organization makes it easy to scan. Minor redundancy exists between 'Comportamiento y salida idénticos' and 'Mismo formato...'.

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 is an alias, and the description fully covers purpose, when to use it, behavior, parameters, and return format. It appropriately references search_hipocampo for the full behavior, which is acceptable given the alias relationship. There is no output schema shown, but the return description is sufficient.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the parameters. The description compensates by explaining that 'query' is natural language search text with examples, and 'session_id' is optional to filter to a specific session. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 this is a quick search tool in Hipocampo and explicitly identifies it as a short alias for search_hipocampo. The verb 'search' and resource 'Hipocampo' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from other sibling tools by referencing the canonical tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when the MCP client prefers shorter tool names. It also directs to the alternative, search_hipocampo, for a more descriptive name. This provides clear when/alternative guidance.

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