Buscar causa por nombre

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the two-name-field requirement and the year exclusion, but it also introduces a false behavioral constraint about requiring a tribunal. This false claim undermines transparency and is contradicted by the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the inclusion of a false statement about tribunal being required is a content error, though it doesn't affect the structural conciseness. It is still appropriately sized.

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 8-parameter schema with 100% description coverage and an output schema, the description does not need to restate every parameter. It covers the essential name-field constraint but misstates the tribunal requirement. It also does not mention the pagination failure behavior, though that is documented in the schema. The misleading tribunal claim is a significant completeness gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter rule that at least two of the three name fields are required and that anio does not count toward that minimum. This is valuable semantic context not present in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 states 'Busca causas por nombre de litigante', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like buscar_causa_por_rit or buscar_jurisprudencia. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides useful guidance about requiring at least two name fields and that the year does not count, but it also states 'Exige además indicar el tribunal', which directly contradicts the schema's tribunal parameter that says 'Omitir para buscar en todos'. This is misleading and could cause incorrect usage.

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