Línea jurisprudencial: quién cita una sentencia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields (tipo, fecha, tema, ruta para obtener_documento, enlace), the ordering (SU and C first), and a strong reliability caveat that mentionar no es reiterar and the relation may be incomplete. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 key output is front-loaded in the first clause, and the caveat sentences about citations vs. verified lines are substantive rather than filler. Sentences are long and dense, but every element earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return contents, and it does so thoroughly (fields, ordering, route/link to the document). For a read-only two-parameter tool with no annotations, the main remaining gap is that the limite/pagination behavior and the read-only nature are only implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (sentencia with format examples, limite with bounds). The description adds only the identification convention (relatoría + ponente + fecha) and says nothing about the limite parameter, so it does not meaningfully exceed 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?

States a precise verb and resource: it returns the providencias the relatoría registers as CITANTES of a Corte Constitucional sentencia, and even names the underlying data block ("citaciones"). This clearly separates it from generic search tools like buscar_jurisprudencia and from obtener_documento, which it references only as a downstream route.

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 conveys the intended context (consult who cites a given sentence) and warns that the result is citations, not a verified 'línea'. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as buscar_jurisprudencia or resolver_cita, so the routing decision is left largely implicit.

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