consulta_maestra

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the aggregation behavior across multiple sources and the output format: literal text plus a ready-to-paste citation bracket. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe rate limits or auth needs, but the retrieval nature and output are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, with the mandatory-first-step instruction front-loaded. There is minor repetition between 'PRIMER PASO OBLIGATORIO' and 'Usala antes de responder', but the structure is efficient and every sentence has a purpose.

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?

No output schema or annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it explains both the aggregated sources and the literal-text-plus-citation output. It covers the primary use and the environmental exception, though it omits failure modes, limits, and explicit read-only confirmation.

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 both `consulta` and `max_fuentes` documented in the input schema. The description adds no further syntax, default, or formatting detail for the parameters, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: it consults the Hugging Face dataset, canonical doctrine, graph, and detected Chilean norms, then returns sources with literal text and a citation bracket. It clearly distinguishes itself from the environmental sibling by naming `ambiental_consulta_maestra` for environmental matters.

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?

Explicitly says it is the mandatory first step for every legal query, to be used before answering even if the agent thinks it knows the answer. It also names the alternative tool and condition when the subject is environmental, leaving no inference needed.

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