Buscar normas en el Gestor Normativo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key limitation: the index covers only thematic summaries, not the full text ('indexa solo los resúmenes temáticos, NO el articulado completo'), and that terms are OR-joined. However, it does not describe the response format or pagination behavior, which could be useful.

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 appropriately sized, with each sentence earning its place: main purpose, critical indexing caveat, search strategy, and alternative tool references. It is front-loaded with the core function and maintains relevance throughout.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context: scope, limitations, and alternative routes. It does not explain result ordering or default behavior with zero parameters, but the schema already documents parameter constraints and defaults, so the description covers the most important non-obvious aspects.

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the search engine uses OR logic and that users should use few, distinctive words, directly guiding the 'palabras' parameter. It also points to specific alternatives for other search needs, clarifying when this tool's parameters are appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Busca leyes, decretos, resoluciones, conceptos y sentencias del sector público colombiano.' It specifies the verb (buscar), the resource type, and the target sector, which distinguishes it from more specialized search siblings. The list of document types adds specificity beyond a generic 'search'.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance and alternatives: 'Para buscar dentro del texto de una norma concreta, usa obtener_documento con fuente="gestor" y buscar_en_texto. Para una cita exacta, usa resolver_cita.' It also advises how to use the tool effectively ('Usa pocas palabras y muy distintivas') based on the OR behavior.

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