academia_judicial_buscar_guias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose return format, result limits, pagination, or whether results are ranked, and adding a parenthetical list of covered subject areas is scope rather than behavior. For a search tool with no structured hints at all, this leaves real gaps.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the resource, with the covered domains in a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin rather than tightly engineered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could usefully explain what a search returns, but does not. The scope of the guide collection is covered, which makes it minimally viable for a simple two-parameter search tool, but return behavior is missing.

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%, so both parameters (query, materia) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's subject list loosely echoes the materia parameter but adds no format, matching, or validation detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') and a specific resource (Guías Oficiales de Buenas Prácticas Judiciales de la Academia Judicial de Chile). The domain is distinctive enough to separate it from the many generic search siblings, but it never names an alternative tool, so differentiation is implicit at best.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dozens of sibling search tools (pjud_search_jurisprudencia, doctrina_search, cgr_search_jurisprudencia, etc.). Usage can only be inferred from the subject matter; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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