Buscar en SUIN-Juriscol

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

Without annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it does not search article text, its vigencia field is unreliable and contradicts the document's own record, its index has gaps (Teletrabajo example), and long phrases match loosely. This far exceeds baseline.

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?

Every sentence provides essential either what the tool does or its limitations and alternatives. The use of caps for critical warnings aids parsing, and it remains focused despite its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, reliability caveats, index gaps, and fallback tools, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The description clarifies that 'texto' covers title, epigraph, subject, or issuing entity, and warns that the 'vigencia' filter/field is based on the buscador and unreliable. Since the schema already describes most parameters (80% coverage), the description adds meaningful context but doesn't need to explain every parameter.

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 clearly specifies the tool searches SUIN-Juriscol documents by title, epigraph, subject, or issuing entity, and distinguishes it from resolver_cita by stating it is not for exact citations. It also notes its coverage of documents not in Gestor Normativo, differentiating from sibling 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?

Explicitly states when not to use: for exact citations ('LEY 909 DE 2004' returns nothing) and points to resolver_cita. Also advises trying buscar_por_tema or resolver_cita when a subject search doesn't yield expected results, providing clear alternatives.

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