get_legal_ranges_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool obtains a table, omitting details like default filtering (active_only defaults to true), whether search filtering is applied, pagination, ordering, or return format. This is minimal transparency for a tool with two optional parameters.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core function. It contains no filler, but its brevity leaves out critical context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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 table retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what legal ranges are, how the filters affect results, or what the table contains, leaving the agent without enough context to predict behavior or interpret returns.

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 covers both parameters fully (active_only: 'Mostrar solo rangos activos'; search_term: 'Término de búsqueda para filtrar rangos por nombre'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's already in the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a table of regulatory ranges (Ley, Real Decreto, etc.), using a specific verb ('Obtiene') and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling table tools by focusing on legal ranges rather than matters, departments, or consolidation states, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without presenting context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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