panel_expertos_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 hints that results are binding ('vinculantes'), but says nothing about return format, result volume, pagination, or any access constraints for a search against a specialized tribunal.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is searched but omits return semantics and usage boundaries. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 fully documented with examples ('peajes', 'coordinador electrico'). The description adds nothing beyond that, 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'), a precise resource ('dictámenes vinculantes y resolución de discrepancias técnicas y tarifarias'), and the institution that scopes it ('Panel de Expertos de la Ley Eléctrica'). This is distinct from siblings like tdlc_buscar_icg_y_dictamenes or cgr_search_jurisprudencia, which cover other bodies.

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 identifies the domain but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to the many sibling search tools (tdlc, cgr, pjud, cmf, etc.). The agent must infer that this tool applies only to electricity-law panel matters.

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