Buscar normativa de la ANH (hidrocarburos)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the tool does not return full text (only epígrafe and links to PDF/detail page), that personal acts are hidden by default (two out of three documents), and that there are 785 documents, setting clear expectations about output and scope.

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 dense and information-rich with every sentence earning its place: purpose, scope, output limitation, exclusions, sibling alternatives, and a critical default-behavior warning. The use of SHOUTED keywords ('ÚSALA', 'NO', 'OCULTA') makes key guidance scannable without adding unnecessary bulk.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: document type scope, topical scope, document count, return format (epígrafe + links, not text), navigation to alternatives for out-of-scope queries, and the critical default filter behavior. The 7-parameter schema is well-complemented by the description's behavioral context, making the tool safely invocable by an agent.

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 schema already covers 86% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the meaning of incluir_administrativos (nombramientos y encargos) and why it matters statistically, and clarifies that pagination means 20 items per page with 40 total pages. This supplements the schema meaningfully without redundancy.

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 identifies the tool as searching ANH resolutions, agreements, and circulars related to hydrocarbons, listing specific topics and document count. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is for hydrocarbon and royalty regulation, not for national laws/decrees of any sector, and names alternatives (resolver_cita, buscar_normas).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (hydrocarbon regulation and royalties) and when-not-to-use (not for national laws/decrees, not for other sectors) guidance, naming specific alternative tools. Also gives critical usage detail about personal acts being hidden by default and how to include them, which is essential for correct tool selection and invocation.

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