leychile_obtener_anexos

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not contradict these but also adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, data volume). Given annotations, the bar is lower; a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It does not waste words, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description omits how to use the params object, the required fields, or the response format options. For a tool with a nested parameter and enums, this is insufficient.

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 adds no information about parameters, despite the input schema covering three properties (id_norma, numero_ley, response_format) with 0% tool-level description coverage. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the norm.

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 that the tool returns annexes of a norm (e.g., Constitutional Court rulings). It specifies the verb 'Devuelve' and the resource 'anexos de la norma', distinguishing it from sibling tools like leychile_obtener_norma which returns the norm itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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