politica_vigencia_fuentes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is explanatory, but it does not state that the tool is purely informational, does not perform searches, does not mutate state, or what kind of response to expect. More behavioral context is needed.

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, focused sentence that directly states what the tool explains. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key topic is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter explanatory tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names both content areas covered. It could be more complete with a note about when to use it or what kind of answer it provides, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the burden.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to document.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: explaining the hierarchy used for validity and the role of SUTRA/CodeXPR. It uses a specific verb ('Explica') and names a concrete resource/topic, which makes it distinguishable from the search- and verification-focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic: an agent can infer this tool should be invoked when an explanation of the validity hierarchy or SUTRA/CodeXPR's role is needed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like verificar_vigencia_ley or verificar_vigencia_legislativa.

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