es_search_teac_doctrine

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds context that the target is 'DYCTEA criterios', but does not disclose behavioral details such as result limits, pagination behavior, or handling of no matches. With strong annotations, the added value is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and covers the key dimensions without any redundant wording 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 tool's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, output schema provided, and strong annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool searches for and by what criteria, but lacks guidance on edge cases, result formatting, and how it relates to sibling tools. The output schema presumably covers return values, so this score reflects only what the description itself contributes.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds conceptual grouping by stating 'RG segments and/or date range', clarifying that 'anno', 'sede', and 'numero' are RG segments while 'fecha_desde' and 'fecha_hasta' are date filters. This helps the agent quickly map the parameters to the stated search dimensions.

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 ('Search') and resource ('TEAC doctrine (DYCTEA criterios)'), and specifies the search dimensions ('by RG segments and/or date range'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get' tools by indicating a search operation rather than retrieval of a single item.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools like 'es_get_teac_criterio' or 'es_search_tax_rulings', nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., when a specific criterio ID is known). The intended usage is only implied by the word 'Search'.

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