consultar_obligacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it only states the core operation. It does not mention return format, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or how the language parameter affects results. The Spanish verb 'Consulta' weakly implies a read operation, but critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating the verb and resource immediately. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, though the brevity leaves out useful guidance that would push it higher.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the call returns and any caveats; it does neither. The language parameter's effect on the response is also absent. The core purpose is clear, but an agent lacks essential information about response shape and optional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that 'id' is the identifier. The 'language' parameter and its es/en enum are completely unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Consulta'), a precise resource ('ficha normativa'), and a clear lookup method ('por identificador'). This differentiates it from siblings like buscar_normativa (text search) and verificar_vigencia (validity check), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'por identificador' implies this tool should be used when the agent already has a regulatory record ID, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or mentions exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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