buscar_biblioteca_juridica

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the search function and the 'visible links' scope, adding nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, pagination, access restrictions, or output behavior. The behavioral information is barely more than the function statement itself.

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. The verb and target resource appear immediately, and every word earns its place. The size is appropriate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, output schema present), the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage place a heavy burden on the description. With numerous sibling tools and no differentiation or behavioral guidance, an agent cannot reliably determine when or how to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, yet the description explains neither 'consulta' nor 'maximo'. The parameter names are self-evident in Spanish (query and maximum), which prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no clarification about query format or what maximo limits (result count, links, etc.).

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') and a specific resource ('enlaces visibles en la Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual del Departamento de Estado'), which distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_sentencias and buscar_actualidad_juridica. The phrasing 'enlaces visibles' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns links or searches link content, but the scope is clear.

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 the many siblings such as buscar_sentencias, investigar_sentencias, or buscar_por_cita. With a large and partly garbled sibling set, the agent is left to infer the appropriate use case without any explicit conditions or exclusions.

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