Buscar jurisprudencia de la Corte Constitucional

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (sentencia, tipo, fecha, síntesis, and a route to obtener_documento) and the special handling of long queries (retrying with a distinctive term and announcing it). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the wording 'Busca' and 'Devuelve' strongly implies a non-destructive search, so the transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then provides usage context, return details, and query limitations. It contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL' in caps and restating the alternative tools), but overall it is efficient and every sentence serves a purpose.

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, the description compensates by describing the return fields. It also covers the main usage context, distinguishes from sibling tools, and notes a known limitation. It does not mention all possible edge cases (e.g., empty results, error handling), but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the 'termino' parameter (that long phrases are not indexed and will be retried with a shorter term), which is helpful but does not fundamentally redefine any parameter. Therefore, it stays at the baseline with a slight bonus for that extra context.

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 states the tool's purpose: it searches for sentencias and autos in the Constitutional Court's relatoría. It also distinguishes the tool from related ones by name (Gestor Normativo, buscar_jurisprudencia_suprema, buscar_jurisprudencia_consejo_estado), making its scope unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (for recent constitutional jurisprudence) and when not to (for other courts, pointing to specific alternatives). It also provides practical guidance about the relatoría's indexing limitation with long phrases and explains the retry behavior, which helps the agent use the tool effectively.

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