buscar_sentencias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic search action. It does not mention read-only behavior, result limits, pagination, potential errors, or any side effects.

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 no fluff and is easy to read. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, lacking any operational detail that would help an agent.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to construct a query, what the output contains, or when this tool is preferred over similar ones.

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 provides no information about how 'consulta', 'ano', or 'maximo' should be used or how they affect the search. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches for judgments and opinions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, with a specific verb ('Busca') and a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like investigar_sentencias or buscar_mejores_sentencias.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investigar_sentencias, buscar_mejores_sentencias, or leer_sentencia. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria stated.

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