Buscar normativa de un regulador sectorial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly documents limitations: PDFs may lack extractable text, validity status is often not published, and filters behave differently per source (e.g., Invima rejects empty queries, ANM doesn't apply year to circulars). This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with clear sections: core purpose, when-not-to-use, PDF/validity caveats, and filter behavior. Every sentence provides actionable information, and the use of bold headers ('CUÁNDO NO USARLA') aids scannability. No filler or repetition exists.

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 complexity of 13 sources with varying behaviors and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what each response will declare (which filter behavior occurred), warns about PDF text extraction, and clarifies that validity status is not independently verified. This equips the agent to handle edge cases effectively.

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 covers 67% of parameters, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that filter behavior is inconsistent across entities, gives concrete examples (Superfinanciera stays in current year, etc.), and advises to explicitly specify year when expected. This compensates for any schema gaps and enriches parameter understanding.

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 that the tool searches administrative acts (resoluciones, circulares, acuerdos) from sectoral regulators and ministries that the normative manager does NOT catalog. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolver_cita and buscar_por_tema, making the unique scope unambiguous.

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 'CUÁNDO NO USARLA' section explicitly tells when not to use this tool and names alternatives (resolver_cita, buscar_por_tema), including the specific case of Decretos Únicos Reglamentarios. It also provides per-portal filter behavior guidance, giving clear context for when and how to use parameter combinations.

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