Buscar jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so richly. It discloses full-text search, no stop-word removal, exact-phrase default, example result counts, and that results include cited norms plus a route for full-text retrieval.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads purpose and differentiation, then adds workflow integration and search behavior. It is long but not wasteful, with clear structure and 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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers output contents (cited norms, route), integration with sibling tools, and search quirks. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle results across a multi-step workflow.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, including exacto's OR behavior and sala's requirement. The description adds search-behavior context but does not materially improve parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches Supreme Court rulings by chamber (Tutelas, Civil, Laboral, Penal) since 1991. It uses a specific verb ('Busca') and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from buscar_jurisprudencia, which targets the Constitutional Court.

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 explicitly contrasts with a sibling tool by naming it and clarifying that the two courts are different. It also provides chaining guidance: cited norms can be resolved with resolver_cita and full text via obtener_documento with fuente="suprema". It advises using distinctive terms and notes the exact-phrase default.

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