Consultar la vigencia de una norma

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses two confidence tiers (alta/baja), a no-fabrication guarantee ('Nunca inventa el estado'), the response leading with a scope line, and source-failure behavior. It stops short of describing latency or rate characteristics.

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 the core purpose, but the single dense paragraph stacks parentheticals and multiple asides (status list, confidence, sentence exception, no-fabrication rule, scope line) that make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back: status values, confidence level, and the leading scope line stating which source was and wasn't consulted. Little an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One required param with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the cita format with examples. The description's mention of 'C-337/11' adds marginal domain context but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Devuelve el estado de vigencia de una norma' with the exact enum-like values (Vigente, Derogado, etc.). It clarifies the domain edge (laws/decrees in SUIN, not sentences), though it never names a sibling tool by name for differentiation.

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?

Provides a clear when-not case: a sentencia like 'C-337/11' is not looked up in SUIN but verified in the Corte Constitucional relatoría. However, it gives no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools like historial_norma or buscar_en_suin for the norm case.

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