buscar_en_manuales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (passages with citations) and implies a read-only search, but does not mention potential side effects, error cases, or prerequisites beyond the mention of 'manuales cargados'. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: the action, the unique role, and a query tip. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and gives a hint on query syntax, but it omits any explanation of the 'rama' parameter, which is a clear gap. It also doesn't mention error handling or what happens with no results, though the manual-loading prerequisite is implied.

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 only 33% (only 'limite' has a description). The description adds value for 'consulta' by recommending exact phrases in quotes, but it provides no explanation for the 'rama' parameter, which has an enum but no purpose stated. It fails to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 the verb 'Busca' (searches), the resource 'manuales cargados por el estudiante', and the specific output: passages with citation (author, work, page). It also distinguishes itself as the only valid source for attributing doctrine to an author, which separates it from sibling search tools like buscar_temario.

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 gives an explicit 'when' (when you need to attribute doctrine to an author) and implicitly excludes alternatives by stating it is the 'Única fuente válida'. It also provides a usage hint about using exact phrases in quotes. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or situations where they would be preferred.

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