uned_buscar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the useful constraint that it searches 'materiales descargados' (downloaded content only) and describes the return format, but says nothing about permissions, scope limits, or whether it is read-only.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately, with nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further, and the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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% and none of the three parameters (consulta, limite, asignatura) are explained in prose. The description does not compensate for the gap: the agent cannot tell what 'asignatura' filters on or what 'limite' controls beyond the default value of 8.

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 verb+resource ('Búsqueda de texto completo en tus materiales descargados') and even describes the return shape (fragments with file and page for citation). It is clearly a search tool, distinct from read-oriented siblings like uned_leer or uned_materiales, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Úsala antes de explicar o resumir algo del temario', which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It lacks any when-not condition or named alternative tool, so it stops 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.