Buscar normativa de la ANH (hidrocarburos)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that no full text is returned (only epígrafe, PDF link, and ficha) and, critically, that administrative/personnel acts are hidden by default and constitute two of every three documents. The latter is a non-obvious default that materially changes result counts.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: scope first, then the routing rule, then the default-hiding caveat with the flag that overrides it. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; none is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (epígrafe, PDF, ficha). Combined with the coverage of the hidden-default behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining why incluir_administrativos defaults to false and how large its effect is. It does not add syntax or format detail for the remaining filters (tipo, desde/hasta, texto, numero, pagina), which the schema already documents.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (regulations of the Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos, 785 documents) and enumerates the subject matter: exploration/production contracts, royalties, fiscalización, reserves. It also distinguishes itself from resolver_cita for national laws/decrees, so the agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (hidrocarburos y regalías), explicit when-not (leyes o decretos nacionales de cualquier sector → resolver_cita), and a conditional on the incluir_administrativos flag. Nothing is left to inference.

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