buscar_farmacologia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a genuine behavioral trait - the reranking step ('tras el reranking') and that it returns the most relevant fragments - which adds value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose other operational details such as rate limits, auth requirements, or error/empty-result behavior. Moderate disclosure for an unannotated search tool.

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 compact and efficient - two lead sentences establishing purpose and use cases, followed by a clean Args list. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool.

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 has an output schema (covering return values), both parameters are documented, and purpose and use cases are explicit. For a low-complexity search tool with two parameters, this is fairly complete. Minor gaps exist around error handling and result truncation, but these are not critical given the output schema and simple parameter set.

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%, but the Args section fully documents both parameters with meaningful semantics: query is described as a natural language query about pharmacology, and top_k as the number of most relevant fragments to return with its default of 8. This adequately compensates for the schema gap, though the descriptions are fairly basic and don't specify value ranges or formats beyond the default.

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?

States a specific action ('Busca') against a specific resource (pharmacology books, naming Katzung, Goodman, Mendoza). It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools which target different subjects (fisiologia, patologia, propedeutica, basicas) - the domain separation is obvious from the title and description. The verb and resource are precise and unambiguous.

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?

'Úsalo para mecanismos de acción farmacológica, dosis, interacciones y efectos adversos' explicitly lists the use cases (mechanisms of action, doses, interactions, adverse effects). It provides clear context on when to invoke this tool, and the differentiation from siblings is implicit via subject domain. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool by name.

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