verificar_vigencia_ley

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds remarkably well. It discloses the conservative decision logic, the handling of explicit derogation and amendments, the 'no_determinada' fallback when evidence is insufficient, and the critical rule never to affirm positive validity based only on absence of results.

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 uses four compact, information-dense sentences. The main action and conservative principle are front-loaded, followed by specific decision branches and the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 behavioral contract is clear, and an output schema exists to cover return values, so the core mission is understandable. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the underspecified inputs ('ley' and 'articulo') and the lack of sibling differentiation leave the description incomplete for reliably selecting and invoking this tool among similar legal-status 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions 'ley' or 'articulo'. The parameter names suggest some meaning: 'ley' is a law identifier and 'articulo' is an optional article, but the description does not explain expected formats, whether 'articulo' narrows the check, or how the law should be identified. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('verificar') and resource ('vigencia de ley') and clearly explains what the tool does: it runs SUTRA history, reports explicit derogation, enumerates amendments, and returns a conservative status. It is not a tautology and conveys a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-named sibling 'verificar_vigencia_legislativa'.

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 implies a use case: verify the current legal validity of a law, optionally scoped to an article. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'verificar_vigencia_legislativa' or 'construir_historial_legislativo', and it does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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