bcn_get_ley

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful quality guarantee ('texto oficial y vigente'), but says nothing about retrieval behavior, pagination, or what happens when a number/article does not exist. Adds some value above annotations, hence a 3.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical examples earn their space by clarifying the expected number format and domain.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with a full-coverage schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (official, in-force text) and how to address it. It omits edge cases such as unknown law numbers or missing articles, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 both parameters are already documented (numero required, articulo optional). The description reinforces the numeric format with concrete examples (21.643, 21.561, 19.886) but never mentions the optional 'articulo' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Consulta) and resource (texto oficial y vigente de una ley chilena) plus the lookup key (número). The word 'vigente' implicitly separates it from the sibling bcn_get_ley_historica, but it never names that sibling or bcn_get_codigo explicitly, so differentiation is inferred 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 'vigente' qualifier implies you should use this for the current in-force text rather than the historical one, which is a useful cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the near-identical bcn_get_ley_historica / bcn_get_codigo siblings, so routing is left to inference.

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