Pack de investigación jurídica

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output format (markdown memo) and the anti-hallucination property, but lacks details on how sources are selected, whether it calls other tools internally, or any side effects or permissions needed. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('orquesta') and includes key details (sources, output format). While it uses some jargon, it is efficient and contains no superfluous text.

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 orchestrating multiple legal sources and the absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete: it names all source types and the output format. However, it lacks specifics on how the query should be formulated, the structure of the memo, and any constraints on the tool's usage.

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 should add meaning to parameters. It does not explain 'consulta' or 'limite_por_fuente', leaving agents to rely solely on the schema. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory in Spanish, but the description adds minimal value.

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 that the tool orchestrates legislation, jurisprudence, dictámenes, and doctrina into a markdown memo, with an anti-hallucination focus. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual searches.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling tools (e.g., buscar_legislacion, buscar_jurisprudencia). There is no mention of complementary or exclusive usage, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly.

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