ver_articulo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the text is official and current ('VIGENTE') and from Ley Chile, and it enumerates covered legal bodies. It doesn't detail error handling or response format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 primary purpose and usage rule are front-loaded, and the list of supported norms is useful scope information rather than filler. Slightly long due to the enumeration, but each item contributes to selection accuracy.

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 two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what it returns, which norms it supports, and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with minor gaps around error cases.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by enumerating the specific supported legal instruments (CC, CPC, CPP, CPR, specific laws, DL 2.695), which helps an agent determine quickly whether a requested norm can be fetched.

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 the tool returns the official current text of a legal article from Ley Chile, a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ver_tema or ver_material, which concern study sessions rather than authoritative legal retrieval.

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 gives an explicit trigger: use always before affirming what a legal norm says, and warns not to cite from memory. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for the same task, so the guidance is clear.

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