graphify_explicar_institucion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the multi-source synthesis (BCN, Corte Suprema, graph topology), which is useful to know. No mention of rate limits, latency, or output format, but the annotations carry the primary burden.

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?

Single sentence enumeration, front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists the components. No padding, though the enumeration is dense and could be trimmed. Efficient overall.

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-only synthesis tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what domains are covered but not the shape, depth, or citation format of the response. It's minimally complete — an agent can invoke it — but lacks guidance on how results map to graph structure (the 'grado topológico' component is named but unexplained).

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% and the parameter has one clear required string with examples ('simulacion', 'imprevision', 'nulidad'). The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is exceeded because the concept example in the schema aligns with the description's scope. One param and complete schema documentation.

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 (genera una explicación dogmática 360°) and resource (institución jurídica en LegalGraphify), enumerating the components of the output: definición, sustento positivo BCN, criterios de la Corte Suprema, operativas procesales y grado topológico. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling graphify_* tools or doctrina_get_institucion, though the 'explicación 360°' framing implies a broader, synthesized output.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are multiple potential alternatives (doctrina_get_institucion, graphify_consulta_subgrafo, busqueda_universal) and the description does not route the agent to any of them or clarify when this synthesis is preferred.

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