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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the qualitative return value (the norm's text), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid route, whether the text is plain/HTML, or whether content is truncated.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a single argument note. The 'Args:' block is slightly ceremonial for one parameter, but the example it carries 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials (what it returns, how to identify the norm) are present. Missing is routing to norma_buscar for obtaining the route and any hint about response size or error cases.

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. It does: it explains id_o_url semantics and gives a concrete example format (`NL/2565770-1`) plus the accepted alternative of a full device URL, which the schema alone would not convey.

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: it returns the text of a norm retrievable by route or URL. That cleanly distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings, but it never names norma_buscar, which is the tool that presumably produces the id_o_url this tool consumes.

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 name 'detalle' plus the requirement of a route/URL suggests fetching a single known norm after searching. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus norma_buscar, nor any prerequisite that the id must come from a prior search.

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