doctrina_search

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 usefully discloses the corpus and the ranking mechanism (FTS5 and BM25), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits return format, pagination behavior, and permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and corpus come first, followed by the method and author list, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description identifies the corpus and search method but omits when to use it versus alternatives and what a result looks like. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for confident tool selection and result interpretation.

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 all four parameters, including area, autor, limit, and query. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the structured schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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') and a precisely bounded resource: the dogmatic canon of the most-cited Chilean legal manuals and treatises, naming eight authors. The corpus and semantic/BM25 search method clearly distinguish it from sibling search tools like dt_search_doctrina or panel_expertos_search.

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?

The description only says what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing against the many sibling legal-search tools. An agent must infer from the corpus that this is for Chilean dogmatic doctrine, with no explicit alternative or trigger condition.

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