doctrina_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about the retrieval mechanism (FTS5 semantic relevance with BM25 ranking), but says nothing about result format, ranking caveats, or pagination behavior, so it adds only moderate value.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb, with no wasted preamble. The lengthy author enumeration is informative but is the only element that stretches the length.

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?

Given 4 parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, no output schema and explicit annotations, the description covers what the tool searches but omits guidance on how to combine the optional filters or what to expect from the ranked results. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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% – area, autor, limit and query are all documented in the schema with examples. The description's mention of semantic relevance adds marginal color to the query parameter but does not extend meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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') plus a precise resource (the dogmatic canon of the most-cited Chilean legal treatises), and even enumerates the authors covered, so an agent can tell exactly what corpus is queried. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like doctrina_list_obras or doctrina_get_institucion, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any mention of alternatives (e.g. pjud_search_jurisprudencia for case law, doctrina_list_obras for browsing works). Usage is only implied by the corpus it names.

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