Buscar en el Diario Oficial (Imprenta Nacional)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the fields returned, the freshness property (same-day), and candid limitations (no norm content, no text, no stable PDF link). It omits auth/permission or rate-limit behavior, but the disclosure of what is and isn't available is substantial.

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 that are front-loaded with the returned fields, then usage, then limitations. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the filter list and caveats are packed tightly enough to slightly reduce scanability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain results and constraints itself, which it does: it names the returned fields, the filter combinations, and the three things the tool cannot provide. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

At 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the cross-parameter dependency and giving a worked example ('tipo="LEY" y numero_norma="2466" devuelve el 53.160'). This clarifies the joint use of tipo and numero_norma that the schema only states as 'exige tipo'.

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 (buscar) and resource (Diario Oficial), and enumerates exactly what it returns: número, tipo de edición and fecha de publicación. It also situates the tool against the Gestor Normativo, so an agent can distinguish it from the cataloguing/search tools in the sibling set.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('para saber qué salió publicado y cuándo, incluso el mismo día, antes de que el Gestor Normativo lo catalogue') plus two explicit exclusions ('NO dice qué normas contiene ... ni trae su texto'). It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool to use instead for norm content, which is the only gap.

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