cita_texto

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (literal text, official bracket, link) and batch failure handling ('lo que falle queda en faltantes'), which is useful. It does not discuss error semantics, permissions, or whether input must be a valid norm, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the core verb and output, then the workflow precondition, then the batching tip. No filler, though the batching sentence partly duplicates schema guidance.

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 two-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return content, the mandatory workflow precondition, and batch failure behavior. Only minor gaps remain around error/permission handling.

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 with examples. The description reinforces the batching semantic of `referencias` but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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: 'Devuelve el TEXTO LITERAL de una norma citada', plus distinguishing output details (corchete oficial y enlace). An agent can tell this apart from generic law-fetchers like bcn_get_ley because it returns citable literal text with official formatting.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Usala antes de citar cualquier artículo: el producto no cita sin texto' tells the agent the precondition. It also gives batch guidance for `referencias'. It does not name the sibling tools to prefer over/under, so it falls short of explicit alternatives.

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