consulta_maestra

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: the tool returns literal source text with ready-to-paste citation brackets and works from gathered sources rather than memory. It does not cover latency or result limits, but the safety profile is already handled by annotations.

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?

Front-loads the mandatory-first-step instruction, then explains the output and finally the environmental exception. Every sentence carries useful information and the structure mirrors the agent's decision flow.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description explains what is returned: sources with literal text and citation brackets. It also handles the main routing complexity by specifying the environmental alternative, which is the most important sibling distinction here.

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 are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond 'consulta' and 'max_fuentes', so the 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 mandatory action: consult the Hugging Face dataset, canonical doctrine, graph, and detected Chilean norms, then return sources with literal text and citation brackets. It also names the environmental sibling module explicitly, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the mandatory first step for every legal query and should be used before answering even when the answer seems known. It also gives a clear alternative for environmental matters, routing to `ambiental_consulta_maestra`.

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