semantic_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a search operation and states the output type (communities and articles), implying a read-only behavior. Yet it does not explicitly state side-effect-free execution, nor any limits or prerequisites, so it is moderately transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler; the first sentence names the tool's scope and the second provides the usage pattern and expected output. Every word contributes.

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 no output schema, the description states the input and the high-level output (communities and specific articles). It also flags the global scope. It could add more details about result ordering or limitations, but it is adequate for initial tool selection.

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 only provides a 'query' string with default and no description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a natural-language question, adding key semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on format, language, or example.

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 opens with 'Busqueda semantica global sobre el grafo juridico', clearly stating a search action over the legal graph. It further specifies what it returns (relevant communities and articles), distinguishing it from sibling tools like community_detail or law_articles.

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?

It explains the tool is for natural-language questions ('Dada una pregunta en lenguaje natural'), giving a clear use context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops at clear context but no exclusions.

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