Explicar por qué una norma aplica a un subtema

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral constraints: the requirement that both IDs come from the same busqueda row, the format of temsubid with prefix, and rejection of other catalog IDs. It does not detail error handling or response format beyond mentioning the return as an extract, but the constraints add meaningful 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by usage constraints and an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (restrictor excerpt), input requirements, and an alternative for related queries. It doesn't specify error cases, but this is not a significant gap given the focused nature of the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics: the 'same row' relationship between normid and temsubid, and the explicit rejection of IDs from other catalogs. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions, which only state the source and prefix.

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: 'Devuelve el "restrictor": el extracto que explica por qué esa norma es pertinente para ESE subtema en concreto.' It uses a specific verb ('devuelve') and resource (el restrictor), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the specific subtopic relationship and referencing buscar_por_tema for identifiers.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: both identifiers must come from the same row of buscar_por_tema, and ids from listar_catalogos or other catalogs are rejected. It also offers an alternative tool (obtener_documento with fuente='gestor') for seeing all restrictors, clarifying when not to use this tool.

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