cmf_search_normativa

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 no behavioral context beyond that — no note on corpus scope, coverage, freshness, result limits, or what a match returns.

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?

One efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and the resource scope. It is appropriately short, though it is short because it omits guidance rather than because it is dense.

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 one-parameter read-only search with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate. It could still note result format or the corpus boundary (NCG vs circulares) that an agent would need to route correctly among the many sibling search tools.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema documents that 'query' accepts a term or NCG number with examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb (Busca) plus specific resources: Normas de Carácter General (NCG) and circulares, scoped to the CMF. This implicitly distinguishes it from cmf_buscar_sanciones, but never names that sibling or any other alternative 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?

The description only says what the tool searches; it offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance despite a large sibling set (cmf_buscar_sanciones, bcn_get_ley, vigilante_radar_normativo). Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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