es_search_constitutional

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. The term 'resolve' suggests a deterministic lookup, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits) is provided. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no filler and communicates the core function efficiently.

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 a simple, low-complexity lookup. The input schema and annotations fully cover safety and parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema means return values are already documented. The concise description adequately covers the tool's purpose without needing additional elaboration.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The description mentions 'number + year' but does not add meaning for the optional 'tipo' parameter or go beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 action ('resolve') on a specific resource (Tribunal Constitucional citation) with the outcome being the full ruling. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'es_get_constitutional_ruling', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool should be used when the user has a citation number and year, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'es_get_constitutional_ruling' or other search tools. There are no exclusions or alternative scenarios mentioned.

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