leychile_linea_tiempo_articulo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific output contents (last modification, versions, amending laws) which is helpful but not extensive. No additional behavioral traits like pagination, performance, or edge cases are disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with key terms ('trayectoria temporal'). However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the verb (e.g., 'obtiene' or 'muestra').

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 need not explain return values. The description adequately explains the general function. However, it lacks completeness regarding parameter usage and how to specify the article (e.g., required articulo field is not mentioned). The sibling list is large, so more contextualization would help.

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 tool description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0% (the description itself adds no param info). Although the input schema includes descriptions for each parameter, the tool description should at least hint at what is required (e.g., 'article number') to guide selection. With 5 parameters (including optional ones), the description falls short.

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 'Trayectoria temporal de un artículo: última modificación, versiones y leyes modificatorias' clearly states the tool provides the timeline of an article, including latest modification, versions, and amending laws. It distinguishes from siblings like leychile_comparar_articulos (compare articles) and leychile_obtener_articulo (get article). However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit, so not a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., leychile_historia_ley, leychile_comparar_versiones). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage contexts mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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