leer_norma

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: pagination via `siguiente_desde`, a fallback that returns official documents for merely-catalogued norms, and live download/extraction with extraer_en_vivo. It omits error behavior, permissions, and rate limits, so it is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded, then pagination and extraction behavior. No filler, though the second paragraph crams three distinct behaviors together.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers pagination and the catalogued/live-extraction paths well but leaves `id` and `max_caracteres` unexplained and never clarifies the return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 explains three of five parameters (`desde` as a pagination cursor, `fecha` as an as-of date, `extraer_en_vivo` as download-and-extract), but leaves `id` and `max_caracteres` undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Texto de una norma') and clarifies scope: the current version or the version in force on `fecha`. This distinguishes it implicitly from sibling `buscar_norma` (search) by framing it as a retrieval of the actual text, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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 concrete guidance on two parameters – use `desde` with the `siguiente_desde` value for long texts, and set extraer_en_vivo=true when a norm is only catalogued. However it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against siblings like `buscar_norma`, `articulo`, or `diff`.

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