busqueda_universal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-web behavior are covered. The description adds that results come back 'con sus citas listas', a useful callback on output format, but nothing about rate limits, latency/volume expectations across 10 sources, or partial-failure behavior. Beyond-annotation value is thin.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb, the enumerable source list, and the return-value promise. The enumerations are long but informative; nothing semantically redundant.

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 read-only, single-parameter meta-search tool with a 100% covered schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the sources and promises citations. But it omits expected result volume across 10 organisms, pagination, and how it relates to the many source-specific siblings, leaving moderate 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter whose description ('Término o frase a buscar') already documents syntax. The description adds only that it's one term at a time ('un término a la vez'), which is mildly clarifying against the schema, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 (término en 10 organismos del Estado) and enumerates the exact sources, which disambiguates from the many sibling search tools for individual sources like pjud_search_jurisprudencia or sii_search_circulares. However, it does not explicitly name a competing sibling tool that overlaps as a universal/maestra alternative (e.g. consulta_maestra), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'un término a la vez' implies one query term per call, which is light guidance on how to invoke. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the source-specific siblings, no exclusions, and no naming of an alternative tool despite a crowded search landscape.

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