graphify_explicar_institucion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully describes the shape of the returned explanation (definition, BCN support, Supreme Court criteria, procedural operatives, topological degree), but says nothing about permissions, cost, latency, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 with no filler, leading with verb and resource before enumerating outputs. Efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 does well to outline the return content, which is the most important missing structured information. However, it omits routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools, leaving a real gap for correct tool selection.

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 single query parameter is well documented in the schema itself with examples ('simulacion', 'imprevision', 'nulidad'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 and resource ("Genera una explicación dogmática 360° de una institución jurídica") and enumerates the five components the explanation covers, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from graphify siblings like graphify_consulta_subgrafo or doctrina_get_institucion.

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 guidance and no named alternative. With several overlapping graph/doctrina tools in the sibling list, the agent is left to infer when this tool is preferable to graphify_consulta_subgrafo or doctrina_get_institucion.

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