Buscar jurisprudencia chilena

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

The description states 'evidencia link_only', which indicates that the tool returns links rather than full text. However, without annotations, there is no disclosure of other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 very concise, using just two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and main filters, but some additional details could be included without harming conciseness.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, error scenarios, or the meaning of 'link_only' in detail.

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 description mentions optional filters for year and court, corresponding to the 'anio' and 'tribunal' parameters, but does not cover other parameters like 'limite', 'formato', or 'solo_urls_oficiales'. With 33% schema description coverage, the description should add more meaning to compensate.

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 title and description clearly indicate the tool searches for Chilean jurisprudence, and the description specifies it provides links to rulings from PJUD/TC. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like buscar_tc, which may also search TC rulings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions optional filters but does not provide context for when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.

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