panel_expertos_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (that results are binding opinions/rulings on technical and tariff disputes), but it says nothing about return format, result volume, or pagination.

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 well-formed sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool, though it packs several qualifiers into one clause.

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 tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the definition is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, it omits any description of what the search actually returns, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding whether this corpus fits its need.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter whose description already supplies examples ('peajes', 'coordinador electrico'). The prose adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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") and a highly specific resource: binding opinions and technical/tariff dispute resolutions from the Panel de Expertos of the Electricity Law. This domain framing distinguishes it from the many other jurisprudence-search siblings (tdlc_search_jurisprudencia, cgr_search_jurisprudencia, sii_search_circulares) without opening either schema.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many other search tools in the sibling set, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb "Busca".

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