dataprem_cendoj_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search scope and provides parameter nuance, but it does not disclose any limitations, side effects, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. As a search tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently uses an Args block to document parameters. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section could be slightly more compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and all parameters described, the description is adequately complete. It covers the what, scope, and parameter formats. Minor missing details like date inclusivity or result limits are not critical.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section fully defines each parameter: query (free text), court (examples given), and date_from (format specified). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, providing examples and clarifying optionality.

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 searches judicial resolutions in CENDOJ, listing specific document types (sentencias, autos, providencias) and the scope (all Spanish jurisdictional orders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Catastro lookup or Borme search, which target different data domains.

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 usage by describing the resource and supported courts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools are clearly different, so the context is implicit rather than explicit.

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