saij-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying what data is returned (metadata, PDF URL for fallos, summary text for sumarios) and the types of documents supported (court decisions, laws, legal documents). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by detailed parameter and return value explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second elaborates scope, and the Args/Returns sections provide essential implementation details without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains the single parameter thoroughly, details what information is returned for different document types, and mentions the JSON return format. The output schema likely covers structure, so the description focuses appropriately on semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'identifier' parameter in detail: it specifies the two possible formats (SAIJ id-infojus examples like 'FA20000057' or full UUID) and what they represent. This adds crucial 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 specific action ('Get a full document'), target resource ('from SAIJ by its ID'), and scope ('complete metadata for a court decision, law, or other legal document'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search or sumario-specific operations.

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 implies usage context by specifying it retrieves documents by ID, suggesting it should be used when you have a specific identifier rather than searching broadly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tool names suggest potential alternatives.

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