buscar_actualidad_juridica

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the content is public and secondary, which usefully signals that this is a read-oriented research search. However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, recency, or whether full articles are returned, leaving some behavior unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. Every word adds relevant information about the tool's source, scope, and nature.

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 tool is relatively simple, has an output schema, and only two parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of any parameter-level documentation and limited behavioral detail leaves some important operational aspects, especially the meaning of 'maximo', underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter explanations. It does not describe 'consulta' or 'maximo' at all, aside from implying a search action. An agent must infer that 'maximo' limits the number of results, which is not stated anywhere in the tool definition.

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 states a specific verb ('Busca'), a concrete resource ('contenido público de Microjuris Al Día'), and a clear purpose ('como fuente secundaria de actualidad'). This distinguishes it from the sibling jurisprudence-focused tools, making it clear this is a current-news secondary-source search tool.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to search public content from Microjuris Al Día as a secondary source of current legal developments. It implies a distinction from primary-source research tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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