articulo

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 discloses only that the lookup may be temporal (current or as-of a date); there is no indication of read-only nature, behavior for non-existent articles, required permissions, or return shape.

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?

A single tight fragment with no filler. It is front-loaded and wastes nothing, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description is too thin for a tool whose correct invocation depends on knowing what 'id' means and what an invalid 'numero' or 'fecha' yields. It covers only the surface of the resource.

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. It does partially: the examples ('27', '3 bis', 'primero') clarify the expected format of 'numero', and 'vigente o a una fecha' explains the nullable 'fecha' parameter's purpose. The required 'id' parameter remains completely undocumented, leaving a real 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?

Names a specific resource ( single article) and illustrates the numbering formats it accepts, which is concrete. However there is no verb (retrieve/fetch) and no differentiation from siblings such as leer_norma (whole norm) or buscar_norma, so the agent must infer the scope contrast.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like leer_norma, buscar_norma, or historial. The temporal qualifier ('vigente o a una fecha') hints at a use case but no condition or exclusion is spelled out.

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