Buscar en SUIN-Juriscol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so richly: it warns the vigencia field returned is the searcher's own and unreliable, that the index has gaps ('Teletrabajo' returns zero), and that long phrases match by common words. These are exactly the behavioral caveats an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: capability, then scope limits, then the unreliable-field warning, then the index-gap caveat and fallback. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no annotations, the description supplies the behavioral, safety-relevant and fallback context an agent needs. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents texto, desde, sector and vigencia. The description clarifies that the vigencia filter reflects the searcher's state, which doesn't always match the document sheet, adding modest value; limite remains undocumented in both.

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 and resource ('Busca en los 56.832 documentos de SUIN-Juriscol') and enumerates searchable fields (título, epígrafe, materia, entidad emisora) and coverage (1844 onward, includes docs the Gestor Normativo lacks). It clearly distinguishes itself from resolver_cita and buscar_por_tema.

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 it ('NO busca dentro del articulado ni sirve para citas exactas') and routes to resolver_cita for citations, plus buscar_por_tema after an empty result. Usage conditions and alternatives are fully spelled out.

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