Obtener el texto de un documento por fuente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important side effects: it never returns the entire document, can write to disk with entero=true, and can download with ruta_destino without returning text. It does not mention error cases or output format details, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 fairly concise and well-structured, with a clear introductory sentence followed by source-specific details and behavioral notes. There is slight redundancy between 'troceado, nunca entero' and the later 'Nunca devuelve el documento entero', but this does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 explains the main outputs (text chunks, total/mostrado/omitido, path when entero=true, download with ruta_destino) despite the absence of an output schema. It also references related search tools like buscar_normativa_sectorial and buscar_jurisprudencia_consejo_estado, placing the tool in context. Minor gaps remain around exact return structure and failure behavior.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by mapping each source to its required identifier (e.g., gestor uses id, consejo uses token, sectorial uses entidad + url). It also clarifies parameter exclusivity, such as seccion only for corte and historial only for gestor, making correct parameter selection much easier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the text of a document from one of seven named sources. It also differentiates itself from sibling search tools by focusing on document retrieval and content extraction.

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 gives useful guidance on how to use sub-features like buscar_en_texto, articulo/seccion, and historial, and explains entero and ruta_destino behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools, leaving that comparison implicit.

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