historial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (dates, change types, decrees, affected articles), which substitutes for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or completeness of the history.

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 terse sentence with no filler; the most informative content (that this is about reforms) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style borders on under-specification.

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 an undocumented required parameter, the description should do more. It partially compensates by listing returned fields, but it omits what the id identifies and gives no routing relative to sibling tools.

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?

The schema has one required parameter (id) at 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is unclear whether the id is a norm identifier, an article identifier, or a decree identifier, so the description 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 names a specific resource — the reform history of a norm — and enumerates the fields returned (date, change type, decree, affected articles). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as diff, 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like diff (differences) and leer_norma (read the norm), an agent has no guidance on whether historial is the right choice for tracking amendments.

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