Historial de reformas de una norma

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

The description conveys that the tool is read-only ('Devuelve') and clarifies what it does not do (it is not a validity deduction). However, it does not explicitly address side effects, permissions, or potential errors. Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden but stops short of a complete behavioral disclosure.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey purpose, content, and the key distinction from another tool. Every word adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for correct usage: it explains what the tool returns, what it does not do, and which sibling tool to use for current status. Combined with the well-structured schema, this gives a complete picture without needing an output schema.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters and provide meaningful examples and constraints (e.g., 'ej. "6"' for articulo, maximum for limite). This goes beyond simple parameter names, adding practical guidance for usage. A score above 4 would require additional nuance not present in the description itself.

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: it returns the chain of reforms (modifications, additions, repeals, substitutions) noted by the Manager for a given norm. It also specifies the resource (norma) and the action (devuelve la cadena de reformas), making it immediately distinguishable from other 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 explicitly differentiates this tool from resolver_cita, stating that it provides the portal's notes rather than a validity deduction and directing the user to resolver_cita for current legal status. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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