buscar_decisiones_apelaciones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Busca' implies a non-destructive read operation and 'públicas' suggests accessible public records, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, result limits, or source coverage behavior.

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. Every word adds precision by specifying the court, the finality, the publicity, and the type of legal determination being searched.

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 output schema covers return shape and the core purpose is stated, making the tool minimally usable. However, with many sibling search tools and no usage guidance, an agent lacks sufficient context to reliably select this tool over alternatives.

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 description says nothing about consulta, ano, or maximo. The Spanish property names and defaults are self-evident, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Busca,' and identifies a clear resource: 'determinaciones finales públicas del Tribunal de Apelaciones.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic sentencia searches by court and document type, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as buscar_sentencias or investigar_sentencias. The intended use is only implied by the resource phrase, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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