buscar_norma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It is obviously a read-only search and discloses nothing dangerous, but it never explains pagination or result-window behavior (desde/limite, default limit of 20) or what a result contains, which is a real gap for a 9-param tool.

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 the purpose, then a compact per-filter glossary in one sentence. Some stray whitespace and a dense run-on list of tipo values, but no wasted sentences.

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 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is expected to carry everything. It covers the filter vocabulary well but omits text-query behavior, offset/limit pagination semantics, and any hint about returned results or their ordering.

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 must compensate, and it does for most filters: estado (3-letter key or 'federal'), municipio (name or INEGI key), tipo (full enumeration), vigente, con_texto, and fuente (scjn or source slugs). It leaves texto, desde, and limite unexplained, but the majority of ambiguous filters are decoded with concrete accepted values.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource in the first clause: search norms by text over title and body, with filters. It is clearly distinguishable from reading-oriented siblings (leer_norma, articulo, diff), though it never names an alternative search path to differentiate itself.

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?

Filter semantics imply the intended usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus leer_norma/articulo, nor of prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names alone.

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