fuentes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup of links, but does not state that explicitly, nor does it disclose what the id refers to, whether results can be empty, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'id' means and what the links point to. It gives only a generic output hint, leaving the key input semantics and the relationship to sibling norm-reading tools unaddressed.

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% and the single required 'id' parameter has no description in either schema or description. The description does not explain what the id identifies (norm, article, DOF note), so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states the resource it returns (official links to original documents), which is a reasonably specific noun phrase, but it never names an action/verb or says what entity the links correspond to. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like leer_norma or articulo, which also deal with norm content.

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?

'para citar o verificar' implies the use case (citation or verification), giving implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not guidance. No alternatives are named and no condition for choosing this over buscar_norma or leer_norma is given.

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