buscar_pensador

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose search behavior like exact vs fuzzy matching, pagination, rate limits, or what fields are returned. Only parameter examples are given.

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?

Description is very concise: one-line purpose followed by parameter documentation. No wasted words, front-loaded, easy to scan.

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?

Parameters are covered, but usage context, behavioral traits, and return value explanation are missing. Since output schema exists, return details are not required, but behavioral transparency lacks.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description adds meaning: query as 'Search term' with examples, lang with language codes and default. This compensates for schema's lack of description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search thinker profiles by name or keyword', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listar_pensadores' (which lists all) and generic 'search' by targeting thinker profiles explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'search' or 'listar_pensadores'. The description implies searching by name or keyword but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparative context.

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