list_related_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the granular control over relation types, but that is already visible in the schema. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has rate limits or permissions, or what the output structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences that state the core action first, then add the key differentiator (more filtering options) and specific relation types. Every word earns its place, with 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 description is adequate for a list tool: it explains the main purpose and names the sibling alternative. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return format, pagination, possible empty results, or any prerequisites. The description is clear enough for basic invocation but leaves out behavior and output specifics that an agent might need.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary ('control granular sobre qué tipos de relaciones incluir') and explicitly mentions the relation types (derogaciones, desarrollo reglamentario, referencias genéricas), which reinforces the boolean parameters. However, it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('las normas relacionadas'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling find_related_laws by stating it 'Complementa a find_related_laws con más opciones de filtrado'. The granular control over relation types is explicitly mentioned, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly names the alternative find_related_laws and explains the differentiating factor (more filtering options). This implies when to use this tool (when granular relation-type filtering is needed) versus the simpler alternative, though it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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