Buscar por tema y subtema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the query resolves against a packaged index making it instantaneous and offline-capable; each result includes specific fields (temsubid, normid); the prefix 'ts-' is part of the ID and must be preserved; and it warns that IDs from different taxonomies can collide, potentially returning the wrong topic. This is rich behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main function. Each sentence adds value, though the last sentence about taxonomies and prefixes is somewhat dense. Overall, it's well-structured with no wasted words.

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, the description explains the main return values (tema, subtema, associated norms/sentences/concepts, temsubid, normid). It also explains follow-up usage and an important caveat about catalog collisions. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or the 'limite' parameter, but overall it gives enough context to use the tool 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 coverage is 50% (texto described, limite not). The description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The tool description neither explains 'limite' nor reinforces its usage. For a low-to-mid coverage, the description should have stepped in, but it didn't.

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: 'devuelve tema, subtema y las normas, sentencias y conceptos asociados.' It also differentiates it from siblings by mentioning the 'índice empaquetado' (instantaneous, works offline) and the specific ID handling with 'ts-' prefix, which is unique to this tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for a 'Consulta temática oficial' (official thematic query). It implies a use case when the portal is down ('funciona aunque el portal esté caído') and provides guidance on using the returned IDs with 'explicar_relacion_tema'. It doesn't exclude alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough.

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