buscar_decisiones_laborales_verificables

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the key behavior: searching for decisions and verifying relevance in official PDFs, implying document retrieval and inspection. However, it does not disclose output shape, result-handling details, or any side effects of fetching PDFs.

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 contributes to explaining what the tool does and how it behaves.

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 an output schema exists, the 0% parameter coverage and the absence of sibling-selection guidance leave an agent uncertain about the meaning of maximo/paginas and about when to choose this tool among many legal-research alternatives. The definition is clear on core purpose but incomplete for confident invocation in a crowded toolset.

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 adds no information about the parameters. 'maximo' and 'paginas' are ambiguous (maximum results? maximum pages per PDF?), and 'consulta' is not explained. The description must compensate for the bare schema but does not.

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 action, 'Busca', and a clear resource: decisions/orders of the JRT. It adds the distinctive behavior of verifying relevance in official PDFs, which helps differentiate it from broader sibling tools like buscar_sentencias. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of a top score.

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 related siblings such as buscar_sentencias, buscar_decisiones_apelaciones, or investir_sentencias. The only implied context is JRT-related decisions with PDF verification, but no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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