doctrina_get_institucion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (definition, requirements, procedural operation, BCN concordances, governing rulings) - important since no output schema exists. It does not mention auth needs or limits, so not a 5.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource before enumerating content. Every listed item (vía procesal, tribunal, legitimación, carga probatoria, etc.) earns its place, though the run-on form is heavier than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly via the content enumeration; safety is covered by annotations and parameters by the schema. Complete enough for correct invocation, though the absence of any usage/alternative guidance leaves a small gap.

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% with only 2 params, so the schema already documents 'nombre' (exact or approximate name, with examples) and optional 'area'. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 ('Recupera') and a precise resource ('ficha dogmática y forense completa sobre una institución jurídica específica'), then enumerates the exact content returned, so the agent knows this is a deep single-institution lookup rather than a search. It never explicitly names the sibling it competes with (doctrina_search, graphify_explicar_institucion), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named. The enumerated content strongly implies the scenario (need a full dogmatic/forensic profile of one institution), so usage is inferable but not stated.

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