doctrina_get_institucion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rich content returned (definition, requirements, procedural details, concordances, rulings), which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Recupera'), any rate limits, or how the data is sourced/updated.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the key outputs. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no wasted words, though the long list could be marginally streamlined.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it tells the agent what will be returned and implies the retrieval nature. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools that also deal with institutions.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description does not add syntactic or semantic detail about the parameters (e.g., how 'área' interacts with 'nombre', or tolerance for approximate names) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Recupera') and resource ('ficha dogmática y forense completa sobre una institución jurídica específica'), and enumerates the components of that ficha. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like doctrina_search or graphify_explicar_institucion, which are search/explanation tools rather than full doctrinal file retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need a complete doctrinal and forensic profile of a specific legal institution. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., doctrina_search or graphify_explicar_institucion) is provided, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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