buscar_normativa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that filters are case/accent insensitive, accept partial names, require all terms to be present, and that an empty filter set returns the most recent norms. It omits any note on result volume limits or upstream source behavior, but the observable call semantics are covered.

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?

Purpose and global filter behavior are front-loaded before the Args list, and each param line is terse and example-driven rather than padded. Length is justified by 12 parameters, though the bullet-per-argument style is slightly verbose.

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 12-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly, and the existence of an output schema removes any obligation to document return values. Sibling differentiation is the only thin spot, which is a usage rather than a completeness gap.

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%, yet the Args block documents all 12 parameters with types, formats (AAAA-MM-DD), ranges (limite 1-100), defaults (ascendente false, most recent first), examples for the taxonomy filters, and pagination semantics for saltar. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Busca) and resource (normas de la Junta de Andalucía publicadas en el BOJA), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like contar_normas or obtener_norma, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

"Sin filtros devuelve las normas más recientes" gives one concrete usage condition and the saltar param points at pagination via siguiente_saltar. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over contar_normas (counting) or obtener_norma (single-record retrieval), leaving the choice to inference.

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