verificar_vigencia_legislativa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not guess validity and specifies the fallback behavior when official evidence is inconclusive, returning estado_vigencia = no_determinada and puede_afirmarse_vigente = false. It could add more detail about handling invalid URLs or successful resolution, but the essential behavior is clear.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds necessary guardrail information: when to use it, allowed sources, why secondary indexes are insufficient, and fallback behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the high-stakes legal context and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: when to invoke, what URLs are acceptable, what not to rely on, and what to return when evidence is inconclusive. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It explains that url_oficial must be an official source and references laws, codes, and articles, giving some context. However, it does not define expected formats for ley or articulo, such as whether ley is a number, name, or citation.

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 verb and resource: it verifies signs of amendment/repeal on an official URL, and explicitly states it does not guess validity. This clearly distinguishes the tool from simple validity lookups and from sibling legal research tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before presenting a law, code, or article as vigente/actual/no derogado. It also gives clear restrictions on acceptable URL sources and warns that secondary indexes are insufficient, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool.

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