investigar_sentencias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral expectations. 'Verificables' and 'por contenido del documento' hint at filtering behavior, but the description does not explain data sources, access requirements, limitations, or what verification means in practice.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it omits usage and parameter context, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a large sibling list, this description is not complete enough. It leaves the agent with insufficient information to confidently select this tool or construct well-formed arguments for anos and 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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain consulta, anos, or maximo beyond their names and defaults. The phrase 'por contenido del documento' loosely maps to consulta, but no query syntax, input format, or effect of the year range or maximum is described.

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 ('Encuentra') and a concrete resource ('autoridades TSPR verificables') with a clear search criterion ('por contenido del documento'), so an agent can infer it searches for verifiable Puerto Rico Supreme Court authorities based on document text. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as buscar_sentencias or buscar_por_cita.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It only implies a content-based search, leaving the agent to choose among 23 sibling tools without clear direction on when this tool is preferred.

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