buscar_jurisprudencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder behavioral transparency. It lacks any disclosure about return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or whether it's read-only. As a search tool, it might be inferred as read-only, but the description does not confirm that or add other behavioral details.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, immediately followed by the searching method and examples. Every word contributes to the tool's comprehension, with no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers the scope and gives examples. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of resolutions, metadata, or just identifiers), leaving a gap for agents needing to parse results.

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 schema already documents 'texto' as 'Texto legal o palabra clave a buscar'. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid inputs ('anticresis', 'asistencia familiar'), which clarifies the expected semantic types and enhances the schema's generic description.

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 verb 'Busca' (searches) and the resources 'tesis de jurisprudencia y resoluciones' (jurisprudence theses and resolutions) via free text on legal topics. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'buscar_por_nombre' (search by name) and 'buscar_en_resolucion' (search within resolution), which focus on specific fields.

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: free text search on legal topics, with examples ('anticresis', 'asistencia familiar'). It implies a broad, keyword-based use case distinct from name/resolution-specific searches, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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