creg_buscar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail about scoring semantics: the default OR behavior and how 'todos' switches to AND, which is real value an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a well-organized Args/Returns layout. Slightly redundant to repeat the OR explanation in both the Args entry and the todos field, but overall tight and scannable.

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?

Covers purpose, search surface, all parameters, and even the return format despite an output schema existing. Missing only explicit sibling routing, which is the one gap for a tool that sits alongside three related search/read tools.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and its Args block documents all five fields (query, categoria, tipo, limite, todos) with examples and the OR/AND semantics. Minor flaw: it lists 'decreto' as a valid tipo while the schema restricts tipo to 'resolucion' or 'concepto' — a small inconsistency.

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?

States a specific verb (Busca) and resource (documentos regulatorios del sector eléctrico colombiano) plus the exact search surface (títulos, temas, nombres de archivo, resúmenes de los .md). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like creg_leer_documento and creg_listar_categorias without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives concrete context for when to reach for it ('Útil para encontrar resoluciones CREG, conceptos jurídicos, leyes y decretos sobre FNCER, generación distribuida, tarifas, conexión'). However it never names the alternatives (creg_listar_categorias, creg_leer_documento, creg_relaciones) or states when NOT to use it.

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