Consultar la vigencia de una norma

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

The description openly states that the tool never invents a status and will say when a status is not available, including a confidence level. This is especially valuable because no annotations are provided. It does not mention side effects, but the tool appears read-only, so no contradiction exists.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core behavior, output types, confidence levels, and fallback policy without unnecessary detail. It is concise yet complete.

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 adequately explains the nature of the output: status values, confidence levels, and the 'do not invent' rule. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of the returned guidance, but overall it provides enough context for an agent 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?

The single parameter 'cita' is clearly described with examples ('Ley 909 de 2004' or 'Decreto 1072 de 2015'), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds enough context to understand what kind of citation is expected.

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: to return the validity status of a legal norm. It specifies the main output values ('Vigente', 'Derogado', 'Vigencia en Estudio') and the confidence levels, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_normas or obtener_documento.

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 explains the tool's behavior regarding confidence levels and fallback when no status is found, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus an alternative sibling such as historial_norma or resolver_cita. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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