leychile_obtener_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'texto consolidado', which is useful context. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose potential errors or permission needs, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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 front-loads the purpose and key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetitions. Efficient and clear.

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's simplicity, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is largely adequate. It clearly states what it does and the exact version constraint. Minor lack of error handling or edge-case guidance, but acceptable for a straightforward retrieval 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 description does not mention any parameters, providing no additional meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself has clear descriptions for parameters like id_version, but since schema description coverage is 0% (the description adds no param info), and there are parameters with schema descriptions that are not leveraged, the description fails to compensate.

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 explicitly states 'Texto consolidado de una versión histórica EXACTA' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the exact consolidated text for a specific historical version. The emphasis on 'EXACTA' and the mapping idVersion = fecha de versión distinguishes it from sibling tools like leychile_texto_vigente_a_fecha that retrieve the text in force at a date.

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 exact historical versions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as leychile_texto_vigente_a_fecha or leychile_obtener_norma. No 'when not to use' or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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