bcn_get_codigo_historico

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it discloses that results come from real LeyChile version history and specifies the returned effective version, official link, and optional article text.

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 core action and scope, followed by return information and a concrete use case. It is compact and every sentence contributes without repetition.

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 read-only historical lookup with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains purpose, temporal scope, return components, and a motivating use case. It omits edge cases such as what happens when no version exists at the requested date, but the essential calling information is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning by clarifying the historical date format, giving examples for 'codigo' (civil, trabajo, cpc, penal), and explaining that 'articulo' triggers retrieval of the article text at that date.

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 and resource ('Consulta un Código de la República') scoped to a historical date and LeyChile version history. This clearly separates it from siblings like bcn_get_codigo (current code) and bcn_get_ley_historica (historical law), even without naming them 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?

Provides a clear use case ('Ideal para ver cómo cambió una norma (p. ej. la jornada de 45 a 40 horas)'), giving the agent strong context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name the alternative tools for current-version lookups.

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