Buscar jurisprudencia de la Corte Constitucional

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses corpus size (44.839 providencias), recency, the return fields (sentencia, tipo, fecha, síntesis), the handoff to obtener_documento with fuente='corte', and a non-obvious behavioral trait — the relatoría does not index long phrases, so it retries with the most distinctive word and announces this in the response. It omits pagination/rate behavior, but otherwise this is rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its distinguishing claim, then the return shape, then the query caveat, then the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields, corpus scope, query behavior caveat, and cross-tool handoff, which is everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the long-phrase indexing limitation and the automatic retry with the distinctive core, which directly affects how 'termino' should be supplied. The 'fuente=corte' link also clarifies downstream usage.

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+resource: search Constitutional Court sentencias and autos from the relatoría, with coverage count and recency. It explicitly distinguishes itself from buscar_jurisprudencia_suprema and buscar_jurisprudencia_consejo_estado, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: this is the route for constitutional jurisprudence because the Gestor covers little of it, and it names the sibling tools to use for Suprema and Consejo de Estado instead. It also gives a concrete usage rule — request autos (A) explicitly since they are mostly procedural and excluded by default.

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