sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only the purpose sentence. It says nothing about whether the search is read-only, whether results are paginated or capped, what the default date window behavior returns, or the shape of results.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though also minimal — there is no second sentence to add routing or behavioral value.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter search tool with fully covered schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. The gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent SII circulars search or states result/pagination behavior.

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 both parameters ('query' as term or resolution/oficio number, 'anios' defaulting to 2023-2026) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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') and a precisely named resource set: Resoluciones Exentas y Oficios Ordinarios de Jurisprudencia Administrativa del Director del SII (Art. 26 CT). This resource specificity implicitly separates it from the sibling sii_search_circulares, which covers a different document type, though the alternative is never named.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sii_search_circulares or the broader search siblings (cgr_search_jurisprudencia, tdlc_search_jurisprudencia). The document type narrows the domain implicitly, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.

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