Obteniendo ficha de sentencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that 'fundamentos' are returned complete and never truncated and that a PDF URL is included, which is genuine behavioral context for a read tool. However it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error cases, or what happens on an invalid slug.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then an Args/Devuelve block that mirrors the actual interface. It is reasonably tight, with minor redundancy from the repeated uppercase 'COMPLETOS'/'COMPLETA' emphasis, but nothing is wasted enough to hurt the score.

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 read tool the definition covers what it does, what the one argument means, and the shape of the response (including that an output schema also exists). Missing only auth/error context and sibling routing, so it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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 largely does: it explains that 'slug' comes from the row entries of 'los buses' and gives a concrete example ('00148-2026-hc-1440-2026') that makes the expected format inferable. The origin phrase 'filas de los buses' remains vague, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the 'FICHA COMPLETA' of a TC sentencia/auto/interlocutoria by slug, and enumerates the fields it returns. It is clearly a detail-fetch tool, distinguishable in nature from the sibling search/list tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the emphasis on 'COMPLETA ... NUNCA truncada' hints this is the full-detail counterpart to the search results, but there is no explicit 'use after buscar_sentencias' statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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