Buscar causa por rol

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only 'consulta pública' and an example, but does not disclose tool-specific behaviors such as failure modes, pagination limits, or other constraints. The schema includes a pagination warning, but that is structured data, not part of the description.

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 consists of one concise sentence followed by an example, immediately communicating the tool's purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, the rich schema and annotations provide most of the necessary context. The description states purpose and gives an example, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, especially given the sibling tool names. A brief note on when to use alternatives would improve it, but the current combination is adequate.

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%, with thorough descriptions for each parameter, including warnings about 'corte' and 'paginas'. The description's example provides a concrete illustration of parameter usage but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Busca causas por rol en la consulta pública' clearly states a specific verb (searches) and resource (causas by rol), with an example that illustrates the parameter values. The 'por rol' distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_causa_por_nombre, but the description does not explicitly compare against those alternatives.

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 is used when you have a rol, and the example shows how to construct the search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when you have a name or RUT) or any exclusions, leaving usage guidance implied.

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