leychile_concordancias_articulo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it extracts references, which is useful context but does not reveal behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds the purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the essential action and use case. It is complete for a tool of moderate complexity, though it could briefly mention optional parameters like transitorio.

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 description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the input schema. The schema itself provides descriptions for most parameters (e.g., articulo, id_norma, numero_ley), so the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable but does not enhance understanding.

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 extracts references (remisiones) from an article to other articles, laws, codes, and decrees. It distinguishes from sibling tools like leychile_obtener_articulo (which gets article content) and leychile_buscar_en_norma (search within a norm), making the purpose specific and clear.

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 for mapping the normative network of a precept (systematic interpretation). It provides a clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling list and purpose clarity compensate.

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