cgr_search_auditorias

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the corpus size and source; it says nothing about result volume, whether the search is keyword or semantic, whether full text is returned, or any access constraints on this public-body data.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what is searched, whose reports, how many) are front-loaded. It is arguably too short for the guidance it lacks, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and corpus but omits usage routing and any expectation about returned results, leaving the agent to guess at behavior on first call.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself with two concrete examples. The description adds only the scope of the searchable corpus, not any syntax, matching, or formatting guidance for 'query', 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 (Informes Finales de Auditoría e investigaciones especiales de la CGR), and quantifies the corpus, so the agent knows exactly what is searched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cgr_search_jurisprudencia, which likely covers an overlapping CGR document set.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the tool name alone when this is preferable to cgr_search_jurisprudencia or the other search siblings.

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