sii_jurisprudencia_judicial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context (which courts, which search dimensions) but discloses nothing about return format, pagination, or auth, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the court list and searchable fields following. No wasted words, though the parenthetical court enumeration makes it slightly heavy.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers scope and searchable fields adequately. Return-shape and pagination details are the only minor gaps, and the limit param is already documented in the schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters with formats and defaults. The description mirrors the schema by naming partes/materia/código/RUC/artículo and fecha/tribunal filters, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, which lands at the baseline 3.

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 de la jurisprudencia judicial del SII), and enumerates the three court types covered plus the searchable dimensions. It clearly scopes the tool to SII judicial jurisprudence, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling jurisprudencia searchers like pjud_search_jurisprudencia, cgr_search_jurisprudencia, or tdlc_search_jurisprudencia.

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 description lists what can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many overlapping jurisprudence-search siblings, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer which tool fits which need.

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