Buscar por tema y subtema

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the data source ('índice empaquetado'), availability behavior ('instantáneo, funciona aunque el portal esté caído'), and the shape of each result (tema, subtema, normas, sentencias, conceptos, plus temsubid and normid). The main gap is that it never addresses the 'limite' cap or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then result shape, then the id-handling warning. Three dense sentences with no filler. The id-taxonomy warning is longer than average but earns its place by preventing real id-format errors.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry return and safety information, and it does describe the returned fields and offline behavior. Remaining shortfalls — the 'limite' semantics and explicit sibling selection among the many search tools — are minor for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 exactly 50%: 'texto' is documented with examples while 'limite' has only structural constraints and no description. The description adds no meaning about either parameter (its 'ts-' discussion is about returned ids, not inputs), so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor exceeds the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('tema, subtema y las normas, sentencias y conceptos asociados') and frames itself as the 'Consulta temática oficial', so the verb+resource is unambiguous. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming explicar_relacion_tema (follow-up) and listar_catalogos (a different taxonomy), so an agent can place it without opening other schemas.

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 clear context: it is the thematic index lookup, works offline, and routes the agent to explicar_relacion_tema afterwards using temsubid/normid. It also warns against conflating its 'ts-' ids with the 'sub-'/'tema-' ids from listar_catalogos. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions against the other search siblings (buscar_normas, buscar_unificado, etc.).

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