Buscar jurisprudencia del Consejo de Estado

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that terms are joined with OR, that results include the legal problem and answer, that full text is not returned, and that a SAMAI link is provided. This is substantive behavioral detail beyond the minimum, though it omits potential error scenarios or rate limits.

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 five sentences, each adding useful content: purpose, court distinction, result content, link, and search behavior. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids redundancy, though slightly longer than strictly necessary, making it concise but not maximally compact.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains returns (legal problem/answer, no full text, SAMAI link) and search behavior (OR, pagination). It gives enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it could mention potential empty results or how to interpret the response format more explicitly.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the OR-join behavior for 'texto' and the pagination strategy with 'pagina'. This enriches the schema and helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca providencias tituladas del Consejo de Estado', identifying the exact court and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the Corte Constitucional and Corte Suprema, aligning with sibling tools like buscar_jurisprudencia_suprema. This is a clear, specific purpose with sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the tool is for the Consejo de Estado and 'DISTINTO' from other courts, implying when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also gives search strategy advice ('Usa términos distintivos y avanza con pagina'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a formal when/when-not list, so it falls short of a 5.

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