leychile_resolver_ley_por_nombre

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral info: it uses a verified catalog first, and if not found, performs a live search and offers matches. This goes beyond what annotations provide without 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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary.

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, the description covers the main behavior and fallback mechanism. The presence of an output schema compensates for not describing return values. Minor missing details (e.g., what happens with multiple matches) but overall adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not detail the parameters. However, the 'nombre' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool's purpose, and the response_format parameter is minor. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 resolves a law by its nickname (apodo o nombre de uso común) and gives examples like 'Ley Karin' and 'Ley Emilia'. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that search by text, obtain by ID, or list norms.

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 use when you have a popular name, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or mention alternatives among the many siblings. The fallback behavior is described, but no direct comparison to other tools is provided.

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