buscar_propedeutica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a retrieval/search tool and mentions reranking in the top_k parameter, which is useful. However, it does not describe limitations, result format expectations, or what happens when no relevant fragments are found, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 front-loaded: a clear statement of scope, a direct usage sentence, and concise parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: source books, target topics, query semantics, and return-count behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not guiding the agent to sibling tools for other medical subjects, but this is a minor gap given the topical clarity.

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 must compensate. It does: 'query' is explained as a natural-language question about propedéutica, and 'top_k' is clarified as the number of most relevant fragments returned after reranking, including its default value. Both parameters are meaningfully documented beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') and names the exact resource: books of clinical propedéutica by Argente-Álvarez, Surós, and Bates. It also lists concrete topics (semiología, physical exam technique, signs, symptoms, maneuvers), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling subject-specific search tools.

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 explicitly says 'Úsalo para' followed by a clear set of use cases, giving the agent practical guidance on when to invoke it. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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