buscar_mejores_sentencias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses the internal loop, global candidate pool, verification against official PDFs, relevance reordering, iterative Top-K stabilization, conservative budget, and possible fewer results. This gives an agent accurate expectations not inferable from the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the usage trigger is clearly separated in caps, and the remaining sentences provide necessary behavioral detail without fluff. Every sentence contributes to selection or invocation understanding.

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 complex search/ranking tool, the description covers purpose, algorithm, caveats, and output limitations, and an output schema is available for return details. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit semantics for maximo and the date-range parameters, which prevents it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 while the phrase 'argumento' and 'Top N' loosely map to the argumento and maximo parameters, the date-range parameters ano_desde and ano_hasta receive no semantic explanation. The description does not make up for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca las mejores decisiones TSPR para un argumento'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it does not search year-by-year and does not favor recent cases, so an agent can recognize its specialized ranking purpose.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'USA ESTA HERRAMIENTA cuando el usuario pida "las mejores", "más relevantes" o "Top N"'. It also notes what the tool does not do, but it does not name an alternative sibling for general-case searches, so the routing guidance stops just short of fully complete.

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