construir_historial_legislativo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it discloses automatic searching, per-candidate verification before acceptance, and the important interpretive rule that absence of repeal is not automatically vigencia. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but the described behavior is materially transparent for an agent.

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 compact sentences lead with the main action, then explain the source and workflow, and end with a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant limitation is stated plainly.

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?

The description covers purpose, source, workflow, and an interpretive limitation, while the output schema accounts for return structure. The main gap is the absence of explicit routing among the vigencia-related sibling tools, but the information provided is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties 'ley' and 'articulo' to the objects being searched and notes that no seed URL is needed, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it gives no format, syntax examples, or explanation of how the article parameter combines with the law parameter.

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 opens with a specific action: automatically searching SUTRA for later laws that affect a law or article. It also clarifies that the tool is about discovering legislative-history relationships, not delivering a final validity verdict, which distinguishes it from the verificar_vigencia siblings.

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 states the source (official public SUTRA portal), the workflow (opening each detail before accepting a relationship), and that no user seed URL is needed. The caveat that absence of a detected repeal is not automatically vigencia effectively excludes this tool for final validity checks, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling.

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