buscar_tratados

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral expectations. It describes two search modes and specifies date format, but it lacks information about pagination, result structure, whether combining parameters uses AND/OR, or any side effects (e.g., performance implications). This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise, fitting in a single paragraph without extraneous words. It front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately describes the two modes. The cross-reference to other tools adds value but could be placed separately.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Many parameters are left unexplained, and the output format is not described. The tool's complexity demands more completeness to ensure correct agent usage.

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?

Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning for query (FTS over multiple fields), solo_jerarquia_constitucional (filters by constitutional hierarchy), contraparte (country/organization), and implicitly firma dates (YYYY-MM-DD format). However, it does not explain parameters like limit, materia, catalogo, estado_tratado, or firma_desde/hasta explicitly, leaving gaps.

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 for international treaties ("Busca tratados internacionales"). It distinguishes between full-text search with query and list filtering without query, which differentiates it from sibling tools like obtener_tratado or leer_tratado that likely retrieve specific treaties.

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 explains when to use query (full-text search) versus when to rely on filters (without query), and provides an example filter (solo_jerarquia_constitucional). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative siblings for specific use cases.

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