compare_law_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (compares text and detects changes) but does not mention authentication, side effects, rate limits, or output format details. For a read-only comparison tool, the main behavior is clear, but some safety or constraint information is absent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and use case.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core function and intended use. It implies that the output consists of detected changes, which is useful for an agent to know how to handle results. The lack of output schema details is acceptable because the description conveys the key outcome.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives general context about comparing versions.

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 specific action ('Compara el texto de una norma entre dos fechas de consolidación distintas') and the resource, distinguishing itself from sibling tools that fetch single versions or structure. It also specifies what is detected (articles added, modified, or deleted), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Útil para entender qué cambió en una norma a lo largo del tiempo' provides clear context for when to use this tool (comparing versions to understand changes). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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