zyta_jurisprudencia_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses latency and rate limits, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication needs, side effects, or response characteristics.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loads key information. It could be more informative without being 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 the tool's complexity (search with constraints), the description covers latency and rate limits but lacks details on response format, error handling, or optimization tips. No output schema exists to supplement.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'query', which has a basic description. The tool description adds no further semantics, such as expected format or examples.

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 purpose: search for rulings and jurisprudence in official sources. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'zyta_minerva_buscar_fallos', which appears similar.

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 mentions performance constraints (latency up to ~30 s, rate limit of 5 req/min) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or best practices.

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