get_law_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the conditional nature of block_id (only required for 'bloque'), the format options with 'si disponible' indicating possible unavailability, and the return type as string XML or JSON. However, it does not mention error scenarios, authentication, rate limits, or other side effects.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, then uses a clear Args list with parameter explanations. No redundant text or filler.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the return value, which is sufficient for a retrieval tool of moderate complexity. However, it does not address usage guidelines or error handling, which would make it fully complete. Given that the output schema is absent, the description adequately explains what the tool returns.

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?

The description thoroughly explains each parameter: identifier with an example, section with an exhaustive list of accepted values, block_id with a conditional requirement, and format with possible values. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It also clarifies that block_id is not always required despite the schema marking it as required.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Recupera una parte específica de una norma consolidada del BOE.' This specifies the verb (recupera) and the resource (part of a consolidated BOE law). It also lists the distinct section types, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_laws_list and get_boe_summary.

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 usage is implied: you use this tool when you need a specific part of a law identified by an identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe when not to use it. There is no exclusions or reference to sibling tools.

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