buscar_normas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a full-text search (FTS) and returns canonical and norm IDs, but no details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects. It adequately indicates it's a read/search operation.

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: the first explains the search functionality and filters, the second describes the output and usage. It is front-loaded and concise with no extraneous words.

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 complexity of a search tool and no output schema, the description specifies returned fields (id_canonico, id_norma) and their purpose in chaining. It lacks mention of pagination but is otherwise fairly complete for its context.

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 compensates partially. It explains filters for tipo, organismo, and date range (fecha_boletin) with format YYYY-MM-DD, and implies the query parameter. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter, leaving 1 of 6 parameters 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?

The description clearly states it searches norms by free text on titles and abstracts, with filters by type, organism, and date range. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (buscar_articulos, buscar_fallos, buscar_tratados) by focusing specifically on 'normas' and mentioning return values for chaining.

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 usage for searching norms and mentions using the returned IDs in other tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternativos or any exclusions.

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