Buscar en varias fuentes a la vez

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that search is parallel, results declare their source, and SUIN validity is not the official record but labeled 'SEGÚN EL BUSCADOR'. This goes beyond the basic name and adds meaningful context for result interpretation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then a behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the search behavior, result content (source and link), and a specific data-quality caveat about SUIN. Given that there is no output schema, this is reasonably complete for a search tool, though it does not detail the full response structure or error cases, which are typical for such tools.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptive comments, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the overall behavior. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific function: it searches in parallel across multiple named sources (Gestor Normativo, Corte Constitucional, SUIN-Juriscol, DIAN) and aggregates results with source and link. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping it to open or subject-based queries, not exact citations or specific courts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use when the query is open or by subject and no obvious tool exists; for exact citations, prefer resolver_cita; for specific courts, use their dedicated search tools. This clearly frames when to choose this tool over the many siblings.

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