buscar_corpus_jurisprudencia

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 usefully discloses a non-obvious trait: no external request is made, meaning the tool operates offline against local data. However, it does not describe output format, result behavior, whether maximo actually caps results, or any error conditions.

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 with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by a useful behavioral constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter local search, the core purpose is clear, but the description does not clarify what 'candidatos TSPR' means, what a candidate result looks like, or how 'maximo' behaves. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps remain for the agent to guess.

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%, and the prose does not explain either parameter. 'consulta' and 'maximo' are reasonably self-explanatory names, but the meaning of 'maximo' as a result limit and how it interacts with the search is left entirely to inference. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 specific resource ('candidatos TSPR'), and a clear scope ('solo en el corpus local'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly noting that it makes no external request, so an agent can separate it from broader or external search tools.

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 usage context: this tool is for searching only the local jurisprudence corpus and deliberately avoids external calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the local-only and no-external-request constraints are enough to guide tool selection.

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