ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia

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 discloses that two source sets are searched (tribunals and annual compendia) but says nothing about result ranking, pagination, result limits, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb and the exact sources with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is searched but omits expected output shape or result behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with both 'query' and 'tribunal' fully documented including examples and that 'tribunal' is optional. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (jurisprudencia de los Tribunales Ambientales 1TA/2TA/3TA plus Compendios Anuales), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling '*_search_jurisprudencia' tools (tdlc, pjud, cgr) by domain. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the environmental scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (search environmental case law) but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against the other jurisprudencia search tools. An agent can infer the right context, but nothing is stated.

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