buscar_papers_novos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It mentions that the local database is synced early morning, indicating potential staleness, and that results include a key and link. However, it does not disclose result limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 compact paragraph followed by a clean argument list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition.

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 a simple search with two parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the workflow with resumir_paper and the source, but it omits details like result count, sorting, or pagination. Given the output schema likely handles return structure, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It clearly explains 'topico' as a filter (empty returns all) and 'dias' as a window in days from today. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows 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 clearly states the tool retrieves new papers from PubMed and medRxiv on monitored topics, and specifies that each result includes a key for resumir_paper and the original link. This is a specific verb–resource combination (implicit 'search' for papers) and distinguishes from the sibling tool by the workflow it feeds.

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 tool is for finding new papers and that the returned key is meant for resumir_paper, establishing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but with only one sibling (a summarizer), the division of labor is obvious.

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