buscar_normativa

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a search/read operation and mentions the language enum, but it does not describe result format, scope limitations, pagination, or prerequisites. 'Verificable' hints at source quality but is ambiguous.

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 compact: the primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides immediately actionable parameter guidance. Every word earns its place without filer.

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 three-parameter search tool, the core calling information is present, including language selection. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns, nor clarify how an empty call behaves given that all parameters are optional. This leaves some ambiguity 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?

Schema descriptions are absent (0% schema description coverage), but the description maps 'texto' to the query parameter and 'tema' to the topic parameter. The phrase 'Use language=es o language=en' explicitly explains the language enum. It does not clarify how query and topic interact or whether at least one is needed, but it compensates for the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Busca', and a clear resource, 'normativa ecuatoriana', with two search dimensions: text and topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generar_checklist_auditoria or auditar_repositorio, which are not search 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 context is implied: use this when searching Ecuadorian regulations by text or topic. However, there is no explicit comparison to siblings such as consultar_obligacion or verificar_vigencia, and the language instruction is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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