dt_search_doctrina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that results are 'vinculante' (binding) labor doctrine, but says nothing about result format, ranking, pagination, coverage limits, or whether the corpus is complete. That is a real gap 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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and authority front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the scope, though it leaves room for a routing clause that would cost little.

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 simple one-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what corpus is searched. It does not, however, explain how results should be interpreted or when this corpus is the right one to consult.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents 'query' with examples ('acoso laboral ley karin', 'artículo 161', '344'). The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 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 resource ('dictámenes, pronunciamientos y doctrina laboral') scoped to a named authority ('Dirección del Trabajo'). It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings such as 'doctrina_search' or 'tdlc_buscar_icg_y_dictamenes'.

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 says what is searched but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. In a sibling set containing several other doctrine/jurisprudence search tools, this omission forces the agent to guess.

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