Descargar norma (PDF)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns base64 content for files <4MB or a resource URI for larger files, disclosing a size threshold and fallback behavior. This is valuable context that the annotations do not provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides essential output behavior without any filler. Every sentence adds value and is highly scannable.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, the output format, and size-dependent behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description for the only parameter 'archivo' is explicit and includes an example path, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this scores 3.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Descarga el PDF de una norma del compendio' (downloads the PDF of a regulation from the compendium). It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmf_normativa_buscar (which searches) and cmf_documento_descargar (which is a more generic document download).

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 its usage context: when the user needs a PDF of a normativa and provides the file path. It also specifies the output behavior for small vs large files, which helps the agent decide if this is the right tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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