Analizar un posible conflicto entre dos normas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it only identifies POTENTIAL conflicts, does not detect semantic contradictions, and returns links for verification. This goes beyond a simple action description, though it omits details like failure behavior or data format.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with clear components and a separate warning. It is concise and front-loaded with 'EVIDENCIA', though the heavy use of capitalization and semicolons makes it slightly less readable than ideal, but every part 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two norms, multiple evidence types) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what is gathered and how to treat the result (verify links). It does not detail the exact return structure, but sets expectations for a potential-conflict evidence report.

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 100% for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight; it mentions 'pasajes que mencionan un tema' which aligns with 'sobre', but the schema already explains that parameter. No significant added semantics.

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's function: 'Reúne para dos normas la EVIDENCIA de un posible conflicto' and lists specific evidence components (identificación, vigencia, jerarquía, reformas, pasajes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT detect semantic contradictions, making it unique among conflict-related tools.

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 gives context for use: it gathers potential conflict evidence, not legal conclusions, and instructs to 'verifica en los enlaces antes de actuar'. It excludes semantic contradiction detection, but does not name alternative tools explicitly, so slightly short of full when/when-not guidance.

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