leychile_buscar_en_norma

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it searches within articles and returns them, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already imply. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence defines the action and output, and the second provides an example use case. There is no unnecessary information; every word contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input and purpose. It explains the search scope, output type, and typical usage. The schema covers required parameters, so the description is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 input schema includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'termino', 'id_norma', 'numero_ley', 'max_resultados', 'response_format'), providing full semantic coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('busca una palabra o frase dentro del articulado'), the resource ('norma'), and the output ('devuelve los artículos'). It includes a concrete example ('fuero maternal' en el Código del Trabajo) that differentiates it from sibling tools like leychile_buscar_normas (which searches among norms) by focusing on searching within a specific norm's text.

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 provides a clear use case ('ideal para localizar dónde un código regula un tema') and a benefit ('sin descargar todo el cuerpo legal'). It implies the tool is for targeted searches within a known norm. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, which would make it a 5.

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