Búsqueda unificada

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: fan-out (parallel queries) and a time budget, and warns that results may include 'pendingSources'. This adds value beyond the input schema, though details about result handling or error states are missing.

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 extremely short (two phrases), but not in a concise, information-dense way. It omits critical details like purpose, source list, and usage context. The brevity undermines completeness, making it under-specified rather than efficiently written.

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 complexity (fan-out across sources, time budget, pending results), the description is severely lacking. No output schema exists, so return values are unexplained beyond 'pendingSources'. There is no mention of which sources are searched, how to handle pending results, or error conditions. The description is wholly inadequate 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?

The input schema has 33% coverage (only 'formato' has a description). The description does not mention any parameters or clarify the roles of 'consulta' or 'limite_por_fuente'. It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, and the low coverage is not compensated.

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 'Fan-out con presupuesto de tiempo; puede devolver pendingSources' is vague. It does not explicitly state that this tool performs a unified search across multiple legal sources, though the title 'Búsqueda unificada' hints at it. The verb and resource are unclear, making it hard for an agent to know exactly what the tool does relative to siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus the specific source tools (e.g., buscar_legislacion, buscar_doctrina). The description does not indicate that this is a broad aggregator or that specific sources are preferable for targeted queries. Agents are left guessing usage context.

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