search_sexual_psychology_kb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Retrieve' (implying read-only) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is safe, what the output format is, or any limitations (e.g., exact topic matching, result volume). This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes value, and the examples are integrated naturally without padding. It is optimally concise.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and provides examples. However, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., a list of summaries, article titles) and any constraints on the input. The lack of annotations increases the need for more behavioral context, which is not provided.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'topic' parameter with a description and an example. The tool description adds a couple more examples (sexual-guilt, sexual-shame), offering slight additional context, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as whether the topic should be an exact keyword or natural language phrase.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('scientific background knowledge regarding sexual psychology'). It provides concrete examples (dual-control-model, sexual-guilt, sexual-shame), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle questionnaires and scoring.

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 the appropriate context: use when needing scientific background on sexual psychology topics. The examples clarify the types of topics, and the contrast with sibling tools (questionnaire retrieval/scoring) provides implicit guidance, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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