get_expedientes

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

The description adds behavior beyond the schema: it clarifies that results are scoped to the authenticated lawyer, that 'caratula' supports fuzzy matching with partial names, and that 'numeroExpediente' uniquely identifies an expediente. With no annotations, this is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences, beginning with the core action, then a search nuance, then a guidance note. Every sentence adds information 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?

The description, combined with the fully-described schema and output schema, provides a sufficient understanding of the tool's scope, auth constraints, search behavior, and filter priority. It could mention pagination behavior but that is inferable from the schema defaults.

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?

Although the schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, the description enhances semantics by specifying fuzzy search behavior for 'caratula' and the uniqueness/preference for 'numeroExpediente.' This goes beyond the nominal parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'legal expedientes (cases/files)' with the scope 'belonging to the authenticated lawyer.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting the list/plural nature and the fuzzy search capability.

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?

It provides guidance to prefer 'numeroExpediente' as the primary filter when a case number is provided, which is a clear usage instruction. It does not explicitly reference alternative tools, but the context implies this is the listing/search tool while siblings handle details or notifications.

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