paginate_law_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the cursor-based pagination mechanism ('Usa el cursor devuelto en next_cursor' ), which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, ordering guarantees, or what happens at the end of the text. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the value proposition and the key cursor usage instruction. Every sentence warrants 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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the pagination flow and how to request subsequent fragments. It does not describe the response format in detail, but the cursor reference provides the essential behavior needed for the intended use.

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?

Schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (cursor, law_id, max_chars), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small semantic link by referencing next_cursor in the response, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond 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 returns legal text in manageable fragments ('Devuelve el texto de una norma en fragmentos manejables'), giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_law_text_block, so it misses the full distinction required for a 5.

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 conveys clear usage context: it allows the LLM to read long norms piece by piece without loading them entirely, implying use for long texts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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