leychile_obtener_norma

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait of automatically switching to systematic index when text exceeds max_caracteres, which is not fully covered by annotations. This extra context is valuable for understanding the tool's adaptive behavior.

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: only two sentences, no filler, and the critical details are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description covers the main functionality and the notable auto-switch behavior. It does not explicitly list alternative identification methods (id_norma vs numero_ley), but these are documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a read-oriented tool.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It mentions max_caracteres and the auto-switch, but that is already in the schema's description for max_caracteres. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns the consolidated current text of a norm or a historical version, and mentions the automatic switch to systematic index. This distinguishes it from siblings like leychile_obtener_articulo (single article) and leychile_obtener_version (version metadata), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., leychile_obtener_articulo, leychile_texto_vigente_a_fecha). The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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