catalogo_fuentes_juridicas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only catalog operation, and the description clarifies what is returned (collections and source hierarchy), but it does not mention side effects, freshness, availability, or any operational constraints.

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 clear sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. The core action and object are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete for a simple catalog-listing tool. The main omission is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling catalog-like tools, but the zero-parameter nature and clear purpose keep the tool low-complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the fixed behavior of the tool rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('colecciones públicas integradas y su jerarquía de fuente'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also stands apart from sibling search and state tools by describing a catalog/listing action rather than a search or mutation.

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 instead of related siblings such as 'buscar_biblioteca_juridica' or 'estado_directorio_autoridades'. The usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'catálogo' and the zero-parameter design.

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