Comparar dos artículos de normas distintas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the algorithm (Dice bigrams ≥0.92), classification categories (plazo, sanción, excepción, sujeto obligado), the fallback 'revisar manualmente', and the limitation 'Sin modelo semántico'. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of 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?

The description is information-dense but front-loaded: it opens with the main action and then details outputs and method. It is a single long sentence with semicolons, which is a bit heavy but not wasteful. Every clause adds value, earning a 4.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what is compared, what is produced, edge-case handling). It does not explicitly describe the return format or a concrete example, but the agent can infer the structure. A 4 reflects this solid coverage with minor gaps.

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 100% of the parameters with clear examples, so no additional parameter meaning is needed. The description does not add extra detail about the parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles them.

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 verb 'compara' (compares) with a specific resource (text of an article between two norms) and enumerates what it produces (marks additions/removals, classifies differences, detects editorial changes). This leaves no doubt about the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling search and retrieval tools.

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: it is for comparing articles from two different norms, which differentiates it from siblings like 'cambios_desde' (likely a chronological comparison). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so a small deduction applies.

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