buscar_doctrina

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the search scope and return type, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. For a read-oriented search tool, it is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second adds filtering and return type. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 says it returns pasajes relevantes con atribucion, but does not specify structure, max results, pagination, or error handling. Given no output schema, this is minimally sufficient for a search tool but lacks depth for complete agent decision-making.

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% with all three parameters described. The description adds that cluster filtering uses letters A-I, but the schema explicitly lists letters excluding B, so the description is slightly inaccurate. This introduces potential confusion for agents.

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 in 66 fichas and 8 sintesis of DYNAMIS by keyword, with optional filters for expert or cluster. It mentions returning relevant passages with attribution, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on auditing, benchmarking, gaps, etc.

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 implies usage for keyword searching with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for when to prefer siblings.

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