Buscar jurisprudencia de la Corte Constitucional

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses that the relatoría is updated daily, explains the retry mechanism for long phrases (and that the response announces the nucleus), and describes the return structure including the route for obtener_documento. This goes well beyond basic safety traits.

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 earns its place: purpose, usage context, return values, a behavioral quirk, and disambiguation from siblings. The description is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a logical flow without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it searches, when to use it (and when not), what it returns, how it handles long phrases, and which alternatives to use. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the note about long phrases relates to the 'termino' parameter but is more about behavioral quirk than parameter semantics. The schema already thoroughly documents all five parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Busca sentencias y autos en la relatoría de la Corte Constitucional'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for other courts (Suprema, Consejo de Estado) and providing specific output fields, making its purpose 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 says when to use it ('la herramienta indicada para jurisprudencia constitucional reciente'), notes that the Gestor Normativo has very little, and names exact alternative tools for other courts. It also advises on handling long search phrases, providing clear guidance on both usage and alternatives.

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