buscar_basicas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'busca' (searches) and mentions 'top_k' implies returning fragments. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, the read-only nature is intuitive, but the description does not explicitly confirm it, and no other behavioral traits are mentioned.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter explanations kept brief. There is no filler or redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from parameter details, but it is efficient overall.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameters and implies the return of fragments. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral transparency (e.g., confirming it is a read operation). These gaps prevent it from being fully comprehensive, though the output schema mitigates the need to describe the return format.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as a natural language query and 'top_k' as the number of most relevant fragments to return after reranking, with a default of 8. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions, giving the agent the necessary context for correct invocation.

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 searches in basic science books and lists the specific subjects (biochemistry, histology, anatomy, cell biology), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other domains. It uses a specific verb ('Busca') and a concrete resource, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool as some descriptions do.

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 usage context is implied by the subject list – if the query is about basic sciences, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling search tools (e.g., for physiology or pathology). The description relies on the user to infer the appropriate choice from the listed subjects.

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