pjud_search_jurisprudencia

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication, result limits, pagination, or return format, leaving the agent with no behavioral disclosure beyond the topic.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope qualifiers following; nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the corpus scope but says nothing about result behavior, limits, or how results are returned. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of annotations.

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%, with both 'query' and 'sala' documented with examples in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the corpus context, not additional meaning about parameter syntax or the sala codes.

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 ('sentencias y fallos rectores') and narrows the corpus to Corte Suprema unification rulings (Laboral, Constitucional, Civil) and Tribunal Constitucional. This differentiates it from siblings like pjud_analizar_sentencia (analyses one ruling) or pjud_interpretar_proveido, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated corpus scope: you use it to find Corte Suprema unificación and TC precedents. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no mention of the sibling search tools (cgr_search_jurisprudencia, ambiental_buscar_jurisprudencia, etc.).

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