Cambios registrados sobre normas desde una fecha

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 reveals two critical traits: the date input is filtered by the YEAR of the modifying norm (not exact date), and the tool does not discover or track new norms automatically. This goes beyond the schema and helps avoid misuse, though it doesn't describe the return format.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial limitation. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description could benefit from a brief note about the return format, but for a tool with only two simple parameters and clear schema descriptions, it is largely complete. The explicit inclusion of change types (modification, repeal, addition) adds useful context.

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 100%, with both parameters fully documented in the input schema (e.g., 'desde' states 'se filtra por el AÑO de la norma modificadora'). The description adds no additional param semantics beyond reinforcing that only listed norms are considered, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Resume los cambios' (summarizes changes: modification, repeal, addition) on explicitly listed norms. It also distinguishes its scope by stating it does NOT automatically track novelties or discover new norms, differentiating it from sibling tools that search or retrieve norms.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific list of norms and want changes since a date. The negative statement 'NO rastrea novedades automáticamente ni descubre normas nuevas' provides a clear exclusion, though it does not name alternative tools. This gives better guidance than no context, but lacks explicit references to siblings.

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