Buscar ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them: no note on result ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether matching is full-text or exact. For a search tool where result shape drives downstream behaviour, this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally viable. It omits anything about the result set (counts, ordering, empty-result behaviour), which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The phrase 'por palabras clave' loosely maps to the query field but adds no syntax, matching, or formatting guidance beyond 'Texto de búsqueda' in 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?

States a specific verb (busca), the resource (ideas en el Banco de Ideas) and the search mode (por palabras clave), so the agent knows this is a keyword search over the idea corpus. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling leer_ideas/leer_idea read tools, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no named alternative among the six siblings (leer_ideas, leer_idea, publicar_idea, comentar_idea, publicar_bisociacion, estadisticas). The keyword-search phrasing only weakly implies the use case.

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