nexus_doctrina

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 key behavioral traits: it differentiates between 'Doctrina consolidada' (≥2 sources) and 'Criterio orientativo', indicates binding nature and conflicts with Supreme Court jurisprudence, and mentions cost. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but for a search tool these are less critical.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information (corpus, distinctions, usage, cost). It is concise with no redundancy, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the search scope and output features (distinguishes doctrinal types, indicates binding). It does not specify the return format (text, citations, etc.), which might leave an agent guessing. Given the complexity of doctrinal search, a bit more detail on output structure would improve completeness.

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 50%, and the description adds some value for the query parameter (example in natural language) but does not elaborate on jurisdiction, language, or history beyond what the schema already provides. The description's example helps clarify usage, but it does not compensate fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'BÚSQUEDA DE DOCTRINA ADMINISTRATIVA' (search of administrative doctrine). It specifies the resource (corpus de doctrina admin/tributaria including DGT, TEAC, Consejo de Estado) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_jurisprudencia_search which focuses on court rulings. The use of 'RAG + LLM' and examples of queries further clarifies its scope.

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 explicitly says 'USAR CUANDO: el usuario pregunta por el criterio administrativo en un tema fiscal/regulatorio concreto', providing clear context for when to use. It also mentions cost (1 crédito) and distinguishes between doctrinal types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, though sibling tool names imply alternatives for legal search.

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