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

Beyond the limited annotations, the description discloses that the call consumes balance under the LEGAL service, points to consultar_precios for current pricing, and warns that the output is dated reference text whose validity should be verified. These are material behavioral traits not present in the annotation fields.

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?

Three dense sentences cover outcome, required parameters with examples, and billing/legal caveats. No filler or repetition; the most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 two-required-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains how to obtain the inputs, what the result includes, that it costs money, and that it is not certified legal advice. There are no major gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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?

Although the schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, the tool description explains both parameters precisely: documento_id comes from catalogo_leyes with the example 'codigo_civil_federal', and articulo accepts numbers like '1793' or '49 Bis'. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource as the exact text of a Mexican law article and lists the contained elements (citation, location, official source, last reform date, disclaimer). It implies a direct lookup by documento_id and articulo, but does not explicitly contrast itself with buscar_ley, so sibling differentiation is not fully explicit.

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 clearly says to pass the document_id from catalogo_leyes and an article number, gives examples, and states this is reference text, not legal advice or certified copy. It lacks an explicit 'when to use this vs buscar_ley' statement, but the instructions and exclusion are clear.

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