investigar_derecho_pr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the tool is conservative, multi-source, non-synthesizing, and returns candidates separated by source and hierarchy. It omits operational details such as error behavior or data freshness, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: scope first, then coordinated sources, then the key non-synthesis constraint. The structure is clear and front-loaded, though it could have integrated parameter guidance without becoming bloated.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, and the description gives enough behavioral context for a non-destructive research tool. However, with three parameters and zero parameter documentation in either the schema or the description, the agent is left to guess how to construct a valid consulta and when to set ano or maximo.

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 never explains consulta, ano, or maximo. The parameter names suggest their meaning, but the description adds no semantic guidance beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer how to formulate the query or use the optional filters.

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 is specific: it coordinates Supreme Court case law, Court of Appeals public decisions, and official catalogs, and delivers candidates separated by source and hierarchy. It also distinguishes itself from synthesis tools by explicitly stating it does not fuse or invent a legal conclusion.

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?

The description states the intended use: when the MCP client needs traceable, source-separated candidates to analyze itself. It also gives a clear behavioral exclusion ('No fusiona ni inventa una conclusión jurídica'), although it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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