obtener_fundamentos_y_fallo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool filters and extracts specific sections, which implies a non-destructive read. It also notes token savings, adding useful context. However, it does not describe what happens if the sections are missing, the return format, or any access requirements.

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 two concise sentences: the first states function and scope, the second highlights the token-saving benefit. There is no unnecessary repetition or 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and input requirement well. It would be slightly more complete if it described the return format or behavior when the ID is not found, but the current level is adequate for a straightforward extraction tool.

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 100%: the only parameter, resolucionId, is already described as the numeric ID. The tool description mentions 'en base a su ID', reinforcing but not adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Filtra y extrae') and a specific resource ('Fundamentos Jurídicos y el fallo final') from a sentencia based on its ID. It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_contenido_resolucion by emphasizing it extracts only a subset, and the token-saving benefit further differentiates it.

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 conveys a clear use case: getting only the legal reasoning and final ruling while saving tokens. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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