Consultar normativa por nivel de autoridad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output composition (documents with title and link, plus the character of the level), explains that levels are classified as vinculante/orientador/informativo, and adds a caveat that it is not legal advice and to verify on the link. It omits edge behaviors like pagination or no-result handling, but it gives substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well structured: three sentences lead with the core action, then describe the output, then give usage direction and a caveat. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description properly explains what is returned (documents with title, link, and level character) and covers legal caveats. It also provides usage alternatives. Minor gaps remain about result ordering and no-result behavior, but the description is largely complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'nivel' options and explains the character of each level, but it does not add new meaning to 'texto' or 'limite' beyond what their schema descriptions already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca normativa colombiana por nivel de autoridad', lists the exact levels allowed, and states the returned data (documents with title, link, and level character). It also explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by saying 'para buscar sin nivel usa buscar_normas o buscar_por_tema', so it clearly distinguishes itself from siblings.

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 contains explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ÚSALA cuando la pregunta pida un nivel concreto' and gives the alternative: 'para buscar sin nivel usa buscar_normas o buscar_por_tema'. This is direct, actionable, and names specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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