get_law_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not load the full text, and it is faster than get_consolidated_law. This adds meaningful context beyond the name, though it does not cover error conditions or authorization requirements.

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?

Two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the usage context. Every word earns its place; no 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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, scope, and performance characteristics. It could mention return format in more detail, but the listed metadata fields and explicit exclusion of full text provide adequate context for selection and invocation.

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 schema already describes the sole parameter law_id with a pattern and example (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('los metadatos de una norma'), enumerating the exact metadata fields. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool get_consolidated_law, making the scope 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'cuando solo se necesita información descriptiva' (when only descriptive info is needed), and implicitly when not to use it (when full text is required). It names the alternative (get_consolidated_law) and highlights the speed advantage.

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