leer_norma

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: short norms return full text, long norms return only the index, blocks are capped at 15 per call, and returned text is the vigente version. It omits permission/auth needs, error behavior, and what `max_caracteres` does, keeping it below 5.

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-loaded with purpose and id format, then the branch logic, then the block syntax. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the id format, the short/long return branching, and the block request pattern. The one undocumented parameter (`max_caracteres`) and the absence of sibling routing leave a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: `id` gets an explicit format and `bloque` gets comma-separated syntax plus a 15-item cap. `max_caracteres` (default 30000) is left completely unexplained, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource (lee una norma consolidada por su id) with the id format (BOE-A-AAAA-NNNN) and the returned payload enumerated (metadatos, materias, referencias, índice). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling leer_documento, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent when to add `bloque` (short vs long norms), which is real usage guidance for the second call. However, it never states when to use this tool versus buscar_legislacion or leer_documento, nor any preconditions, so guidance is only partial.

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