nexus_jurisprudencia_search

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

Description discloses use of vector model (voyage-law-2), character limit for excerpt (2000 chars), and that it returns permanent URLs. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; for a read-only search, this is adequate. No contradictions.

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?

Description is information-dense but could be slightly more concise. However, every sentence adds value: purpose, technology, jurisdictions, return format, usage guidance, cost. Front-loaded with purpose in Spanish, making it scannable.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return fields (title, source, excerpt, URL). It covers corpus sizes (ES ~141k, CO ~106k), expansion plans, and cost. For a search tool with three parameters, this is comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (query, jurisdiction, top_k). The description adds context on corpus sizes and example queries, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded due to helpful 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 it is a semantic search for jurisprudence using vector query. It specifies the source (Nexus corpus, CENDOJ, TS/AN/TSJ/AP, etc.) and exactly what is returned (top-K results with title, source, excerpt, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools even without seeing their descriptions.

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?

Explicit 'USAR CUANDO' section provides clear use cases: locating sentences on a topic, contrasting an argument, or building a citation dossier. It also mentions the cost is free. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the use cases are sufficient for selection.

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