normalize_boe_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool accepts various formats and returns the type, normalized identifier, and other extracted fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, unrecognized references, or any limitations, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the main action in the first sentence and provide examples and output in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is 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 has a simple interface with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does mention the type and normalized identifier, but the phrase 'otros campos extraídos' is vague and doesn't enumerate all possible outputs or error behavior. This leaves an agent uncertain about the full response structure.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter with a basic description. The tool's description adds significant value by listing concrete examples ('Ley 40/2015', 'Real Decreto 123/2020') and indicating that the parameter accepts free text in multiple formats, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 converts free-form legal references into a normalized form, with a specific verb ('Convierte') and resource ('referencia libre a una norma o BOE'). It provides examples of accepted inputs and output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on structured data.

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 implies usage when a free-text reference needs normalization, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The examples help, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, so it falls at the baseline of implied usage.

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