search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, cache behavior (though ttl parameter exists), or any side effects. The read-only nature of a search is implied but not explicitly stated, requiring the agent to assume based on the tool name.

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?

Two sentences, completely front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word serves a function. No extraneous information.

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 existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool. It covers the core functionality and filtering options. Minor missing context like pagination defaults are handled by the schema.

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 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, essentially reiterating that results can be filtered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does heavy lifting.

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 the tool searches for normas or avisos in the IMPO database, using the verb 'search' and specifying the resource. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'norma' or 'bases'.

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 mentions filtering by type and year, implying usage for legislative searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.

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