pjud_search_jurisprudencia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses accent-insensitive matching and the corpus bounds (size, date window, sources), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, return format, or whether the corpus is a static local snapshot versus live data. Read-only nature is only implied by 'Busca'.

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: verb + resource first, then the corpus parenthetical, then the matching dimensions. The parenthetical is information-dense rather than wasteful, though the sentence is long and packs several clauses with dashes and semicolons.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must stand alone, and it covers corpus scope and query semantics well. It omits, however, expected result shape, pagination/limits, and any indication of how 'sala' interacts with the results, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter search tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating what a query string can match against (carátula, materia, recurso, resultado, doctrina) and noting accent-insensitivity, which meaningfully informs how to phrase the required 'query' beyond the schema's brief example.

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 ('jurisprudencia') and pins the exact corpus it searches: 70,523 Supreme Court sentences from the last two years, 966 Constitutional Tribunal rulings, plus CS/TC guiding precedents. That corpus naming inherently separates it from siblings like cgr_search_jurisprudencia or tdlc_search_jurisprudencia, and it further lists the searchable dimensions (carátula, materia, recurso, resultado, doctrina).

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 scope of the local corpus implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative jurisprudence search tools (cgr, tdlc, ambiental, sii_jurisprudencia_judicial). Usage must be inferred from the corpus description.

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