Cambios registrados sobre normas desde una fecha

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: only the year of `desde` is honored, undated notes are discarded, each citation resolves independently, and a failed citation is recorded rather than aborting the batch. It also sketches the returned content (acción, norma modificadora, artículo, nota). It stops short of stating limits or output format, so a 4.

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-loaded with purpose and return shape, then filtering semantics, then exclusions/alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though it is dense and runs long; a small trim of the redundant 'una que falla se anota' clause would tighten it.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, date-filtering behavior, partial-failure semantics, and the two alternative tools. With annotations handling safety, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains that '2019-12-31' effectively means all of 2019, that undated notes are dropped, and that every cita must carry its own year and resolves separately. That materially clarifies both parameters.

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 verb and result ('resume los cambios: modificación, derogación, adición') scoped to 'LAS NORMAS QUE SE LISTAN', and enumerates the returned fields per norm. It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (buscar_diario_oficial, historial_norma), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('NO rastrea novedades ni descubre normas nuevas') and names the exact alternative for each excluded case: buscar_diario_oficial for newly published material and historial_norma for the full history of a single norm including undated notes. 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.