buscar_legislacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and the 'auto' fallback behavior (search title, then full text if no results), but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, rate limits, or permissions for a 9-parameter search tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return fields, then moves efficiently through parameters in a compact block. No wasted sentences, though the parameter prose could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, and most parameters are covered, but the two undocumented boolean filters (solo_vigentes, ordenar_por_fecha) leave a real gap given zero schema coverage and no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 7 of 9 parameters: texto, materia, desde/hasta formats, rango examples, limite range, and donde modes are all explained. Only solo_vigentes and ordenar_por_fecha are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca en la legislación consolidada') and clarifies the search surface (título y texto), so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like novedades or sumario_boe, which also relate to BOE legislation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sumario_boe or novedades, nor any exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the parameter list and the note that relevance ordering is the default.

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