sii_jurisprudencia_judicial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches sentences and supports filters; it does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or any limits. For a benign search tool this is less critical, but significant behavioral context is absent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It compresses the court scope, search criteria, and filters with no redundant words or filler, making it efficient and easily parseable.

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?

The description adequately covers the resource and search facets for a straightforward search tool with five optional parameters and full schema coverage. However, it lacks usage context versus sibling tools and any indication of return value behavior, which is notable given there is no output schema and no 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates searchable fields (partes, materia, código, RUC, artículo) and mentions date/court filters, but this largely duplicates the schema parameter descriptions. It adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Busca' and a specific resource: sentencias de la jurisprudencia judicial del SII, enumerating the relevant courts and search criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to SII judicial jurisprudence, but it does not name alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools such as pjud_search_jurisprudencia or sii_buscar_resoluciones_y_oficios. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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