leer_nota_dof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only 'texto completo' and 'en vivo' (full text, live fetch), but says nothing about truncation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling — all relevant given the 'desde'/'max_caracteres' parameters imply paged or capped retrieval.

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 sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the description doing too little: it does not explain how to page through long notes, what the character cap means, or what the return looks like for a 3-parameter tool.

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% for 3 parameters. The description only accounts for 'codigo' implicitly via 'por su código'; 'desde' (offset) and 'max_caracteres' (default 60000) are never explained, so an agent must guess their semantics and how they interact.

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 specific verb+resource: retrieving the full text of a DOF note identified by its code. It also hints at the sibling relationship by noting the code comes 'de dof_del_dia', which helps separate it from leer_norma/buscar_norma, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The parenthetical '(de dof_del_dia)' implies you should obtain the code from that sibling tool first, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs leer_norma, no when-not, and no stated prerequisites beyond the code source.

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