buscar_por_nombre

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a search operation ('Busca') without explicitly confirming read-only behavior, describing return format, pagination, or potential limitations. This is minimal 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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and target. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but the description does not specify what the search returns (e.g., case summaries, full listings) or any constraints like limits or authentication. The essential invocation info is present, but the lack of output details leaves some gaps.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'nombre' with 'Nombre de la persona o parte a buscar'. The description's reference to 'partes involucradas' is essentially redundant with the schema, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb 'Busca' (searches) and names the resource 'causas o expedientes en el TCP de Bolivia' with a clear criterion 'por el nombre de las partes involucradas'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_por_resolucion.

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 implies usage for name-based searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The phrase 'por el nombre de las partes involucradas' gives context but lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this when...' or 'instead of...'.

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