buscar_mejores_autoridades

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a multi-source aggregation behavior and strict verification filtering, but does not explain what the verification levels are, how results are prioritized, or the exact nature of the returned authorities.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the core idea is front-loaded. It could carry more useful detail without becoming verbose, but as written it is efficient.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, many overlapping siblings, and no schema descriptions, this single sentence is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation. The description omits selection criteria, parameter effects, and behavioral details needed to distinguish it from 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify argumento, maximo, ano_apelaciones, and incluir_actualidad. It only generally maps 'cuestión jurídica' to the query and adds almost no parameter-level meaning, though the parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory.

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?

States a clear activity: investigating a legal question across several sources with strict verification. The resource ('cuestión jurídica') and method ('varias fuentes', 'niveles estrictos de verificación') are identifiable, but it does not distinguish from sibling research tools such as buscar_sentencias or investigar_derecho_pr.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The strict-verification phrasing implies it is appropriate when multi-source, high-confidence legal research is needed, but it leaves exclusion conditions unstated.

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