Buscando por sistematizacion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the server strips accents from 'search', and the response carries a global 'index' plus 'slug' for detalle_sentencia. It never states that this is a read-only query, nor does it describe pagination mechanics beyond the field names.

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 summary followed by an explicit Args/Devuelve split, which makes it easy to scan. The Devuelve section overlaps with the output schema, so a little of it is redundant, but nothing is padded.

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?

Four parameters are all documented, the id source is named, and return fields are pointed at even though an output schema already exists. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly; the remaining gap is the absence of any statement about read-only safety and how the two text filters combine.

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 has to compensate and largely does: it explains comma-separated id syntax with concrete examples ('268' = Habeas corpus, '1' = Precedentes vinculantes, '268,269'), clarifies that 'search' filters within the sistematizacion, gives an expediente example, and notes page is 1-based. Only the interaction between 'search' and 'numero_expediente' is left unstated.

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?

Names a specific resource and view ('la vista sistematizacion del portal del TC') and enumerates what the results contain (precedentes vinculantes, tipos de proceso, sub-categorias del arbol). It also points at the sibling that supplies the ids, so an agent can distinguish it from listar_sistematizaciones, though it never contrasts itself against the parallel sibling resultados_tesauro.

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?

States the prerequisite that exact ids come from listar_sistematizaciones, which is genuine routing guidance, but gives no when-to-use vs resultados_tesauro/busqueda_avanzada and no exclusions or fallback behavior. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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