s21_search_readings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation (transversal search) and scope (all downloaded readings and PDFs), which implies a read-only action. However, it does not mention result shape, behavior when no matches exist, or whether the search covers full text vs. metadata.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the search scope, and the object being searched.

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 is simple and the description explains what it does well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., snippets, document titles, relevance ranks), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, and the query parameter already includes a description with examples. The tool description adds the notion of searching by 'conceptos o palabras clave' but does not materially extend the schema's parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Realiza una búsqueda transversal') and a resource ('todas las lecturas y PDFs descargados del alumno'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like s21_get_reading or s21_read_pdf_content, which target individual items rather than cross-document search.

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 makes the intended context clear: use it when needing to search concepts or keywords across downloaded readings and PDFs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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