Buscar regulaciones publicadas en gob.ec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the source (gob.ec) and the presence of Registro Oficial references, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or coverage gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its distinguishing feature (Registro Oficial references) come first. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema and an output schema covering return shape, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the closely related get_regulacion_info sibling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (page, query, format) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb pair (search/list) and resource (regulations published on gob.ec), plus the distinctive value-add of Registro Oficial references. It does not differentiate from the sibling get_regulacion_info, which covers the same resource, so the agent must infer the split between searching and fetching details.

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?

'Search or list' hints at the usage mode, and the schema's page/query defaults imply listing when the query is empty, but the description never states when to use this versus get_regulacion_info or when to prefer query over pagination. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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