Resolver una cita normativa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and goes beyond basics: it discloses the validation mode's classification behavior and explicitly warns that it never affirms validity ('NUNCA afirma vigencia'). It also states that each citation is resolved with a link, giving a clear expectation of output; however, it doesn't address potential side effects or error behavior, but for a lookup tool this is adequate.

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 tight and front-loaded, using three sentences to cover purpose, usage, batch mode, and validation. Every sentence adds functional information without redundancy.

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 covers both main modes (resolution and validation), provides examples, and includes the critical caveat about not affirming vigencia. With no output schema, it could have specified the exact return structure for the normal mode, but the phrase 'cada una con su enlace' gives a sufficient expectation for an agent.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), giving a solid baseline. The description adds extra value by explaining the batch parameter 'citas' with examples and clarifying the 'validar' mode's nuances, though it could have elaborated further on return formats.

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 identifies the tool as a fast and exact route for resolving normative citations (e.g., 'Ley 909 de 2004', 'C-337/11') and explicitly distinguishes it from the imprecise word-based search. The title 'Resolver una cita normativa' reinforces the verb-resource structure.

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 instructs to use it whenever the question mentions a concrete norm ('Úsala SIEMPRE que la pregunta mencione una norma concreta') and warns against the word search, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the batch use case, covering the main alternative.

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