Buscar normativa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a behavioral detail: it includes normativa from the last month. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default date ranges, or how filters combine. Since annotations cover the key safety traits, the description's additional context is modest, scoring 3.

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 two short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words and conveys all key search dimensions efficiently.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no required ones) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential search capabilities and the notable 'last month' inclusion. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. Minor gaps like pagination are already documented in schema descriptions, so the overall completeness is adequate but not exhaustive, scoring 4.

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 coverage is 50%, with descriptions missing for 'desde', 'hasta', 'entidad', and 'materia'. The description compensates by explaining these as filters for date range, entity, and matter. It also clarifies the tipo parameter as covering circulares, oficios, and NCG. This adds meaning beyond the schema, so a 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Busca' (searches) and identifies the resource: CMF norms (circulares, oficios, NCG). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying search criteria (type, number, date range, entity, matter), 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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and its main search dimensions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like cmf_normativa_descargar, nor does it mention exclusions. This earns a 4.

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