cmf_search_normativa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether search is full-text or exact-match, how results are ranked or paginated, or what the response contains, adding only that the scope is NCG/circulars.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, well sized for a one-parameter search tool. It is perhaps too sparse to guide selection, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 low-complexity single-parameter search with no output schema, the description defines scope adequately but omits any indication of return format or result volume. That leaves an agent without expectations about what a call returns.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already documents accepted inputs with examples ('461', 'gobierno corporativo'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb (Busca) and a specific resource (Normas de Carácter General y circulares de la CMF), naming the document types so an agent can distinguish it from cmf_buscar_sanciones. It lacks any explicit contrast with the sibling, but the scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the scope alone.

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