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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond them by explaining the three payload shapes the result can take and what the agent must do in each, including the case where only `nota` exists and the text is unreadable. The closing warning that the court-registered fallo and asunto say WHAT was decided but not WHY is a substantive epistemic constraint that prevents mis-citation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the read-mode branches are laid out as short bullets that are each independently actionable, with the caveat isolated behind a warning marker. The dense field enumeration in sentence one buys the agent real orientation and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description carries the full descriptive burden and does so: it discloses the shape of the returned decisions, the possible readability states, and how to proceed in each. The degraded case (decision issued, text not yet readable) is explicitly handled, which is exactly the gap an agent would otherwise stumble into.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the NUC format and its origin in buscar_audiencias. The description only echoes 'por su NUC' without adding format, validation, or fallback details beyond the schema — the baseline 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 states the exact resource returned (the decisions the Poder Judicial registers for a case, keyed by NUC) and enumerates the fields: number, date, type, ruling, court, chamber, plus proceeding status. It also frames the intent ('Sirve para saber si un caso ya se falló'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools and positions it as the entry point that feeds obtener_texto_completo.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('para saber si un caso ya se falló') and routes the agent onward with named alternatives and conditions: use obtener_texto_completo with the `id` when `en_clerk` is present, read the PDF directly when only `pdf` is present. It does not say when to prefer this over related lookups such as buscar_decretos or buscar_jurisprudencia, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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