buscar_fallos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that voces uses ILIKE filtering but omits whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, or any rate limits. Behavioral details are 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it omits necessary details. It earns its place but could include parameter explanations without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides the basic purpose and one parameter, but fails to explain other parameters, output format, or the hybrid query behavior sufficiently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only explains the voces parameter. query, limit, anio_desde, and anio_hasta are left undocumented, leaving the agent without essential meaning.

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 CSJN jurisprudence, using a hybrid of summaries and text. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buscar_articulos and obtener_fallo by specifying the target (fallos) and the hybrid approach.

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 searching jurisprudence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like buscar_articulos or obtener_fallo. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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