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 explaining the search scope, document types, default behaviors, pagination, and return format. It discloses that 'texto' field only works with sumarios and provides practical examples. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the 'Args' section details into the initial description, but overall it's appropriately sized and organized.

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 complexity of a 5-parameter search tool with no annotations but with output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, usage, and return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it covers all necessary context for effective use.

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, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations beyond the bare schema. It explains what each parameter does, provides examples for 'query', enumerates all 'doc_type' options with descriptions, clarifies field limitations, and specifies valid ranges for 'limit'.

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 Argentine legal documents in SAIJ, listing specific document types (court decisions, legal summaries, legislation, doctrine, dictámenes). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search functionality rather than document retrieval (saij_get_document) or specific summary access (saij_get_sumarios).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search Argentine legal documents in SAIJ'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or directly compare to sibling tools. It implies usage through the document type examples but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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