buscar_patologia

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 states that the tool searches pathology books and returns relevant fragments after reranking, which discloses key behavior. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only search tool this is not a significant gap.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into an Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the domain, use case, parameters, and output behavior. An output schema exists for the return value, so that does not need to be explained. It could be strengthened by explicitly saying when not to use it or naming sibling tools, but it is otherwise complete.

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 provides no property descriptions, but the 'Args' section fully compensates: 'query' is described as a natural-language pathology question, and 'top_k' is explained as the number of relevant fragments to return after reranking, including its default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('Busca') and a resource (pathology books: Robbins, Kumar, Rubin), and clarifies that it is for understanding disease mechanisms, morphological changes, and pathophysiology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools, but the domain-specific scope makes the distinction clear enough.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to understand disease mechanisms, morphological changes, and pathophysiology. It does not provide exclusions or mention sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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