Buscando pretensiones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the result cap (hasta 50 sugerencias), the return object shape, and the scope limitation (solo Corte Suprema). It does not document the 'nota' field or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is solid disclosure.

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 organized into a purpose line followed by explicit Args/Devuelve sections, with the key constraint front-loaded. It is dense but every sentence carries information; no 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?

For a single-parameter autocomplete with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers input constraints, output shape, result limits, and the downstream use case. The only minor gap is the undocumented 'nota' return field, which is not critical to correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines q as an initial text with a minimum of 1 character and gives three concrete examples ('prescripcion', 'indemnizacion', 'pension'). This adds real semantics beyond the bare 'string' type, though it does not specify normalization or partial-match rules.

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 a specific resource and function: autocomplete suggestions over the systematized inventory of 'Pretension/Delito' values. It also names the sibling it feeds (buscar_resoluciones), so an agent can distinguish its role from other buscar_* tools. Slightly indirect phrasing ('Sugerencias del AUTOCOMPLETE') keeps it from 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?

It conveys the core usage pattern: the EXACT returned values are used as the 'pretension' filter in buscar_resoluciones. This effectively tells the agent when this tool is useful (to obtain valid filter values) and which sibling consumes them. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement or an alternative for non-Corte-Suprema searches.

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