Buscar jurisprudencia

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what fields are returned when providing rol/anio, and crucially discloses the 'ocultas' field semantics—if greater than zero, the list is a subset and absence cannot be interpreted as definite missing. This is rich, non-obvious behavior directly relevant to using results.

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 three short, purposeful paragraphs. The first sentence states the main function, the second gives a concrete usage example, and the third warns about a surprising result field. No filler; front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given 8 optional parameters and a rich output schema, the description focuses on the most important use case (citation verification) and the key caveat (ocultas). It doesn't enumerate all filtering options, but those are already in the schema. The description adds enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 8 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how 'rol' and 'anio' combine to fetch a specific ruling and what output to expect. This elevates beyond the schema's minimal per-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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Busca sentencias de la Corte Suprema en el Buscador Unificado de Fallos.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which search 'causas') by specifying 'sentencias' and provides a concrete use case (verifying a citation).

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 explicitly says the tool is for verifying a citation before using it, and specifically mentions giving 'rol' and 'anio' to retrieve the ruling. While it doesn't name alternatives, the sibling context makes it clear this is for jurisprudence ('sentencias') vs. causes. This is clear contextual guidance but not explicit exclusionary guidance.

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