leychile_texto_vigente_a_fecha

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it retrieves historical text and adds an ultraactivity alert for procedural norms. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical special case (procedural norms). No waste.

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 requires specifying a norm (via id_norma or numero_ley), the description omits this crucial context. While the output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description should mention that the tool operates on a specific norm and how to identify it. It covers the main purpose but misses identification guidance.

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%, meaning the description provides no parameter-specific information. While the schema itself has detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Fecha del presupuesto fáctico'), the description should compensate for low coverage but does not. It doesn't explain how to identify the norm (id_norma or numero_ley) or how articulo and fecha are used.

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 the tool retrieves the historical wording of an article on a given date ('control intertemporal'), with a special alert for procedural norms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like leychile_obtener_articulo (current text) or leychile_comparar_versiones.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: for determining how an article was worded at a specific date, including ultraactivity for procedural norms. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the context of siblings implies this is for historical queries, not current text.

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