Estado / vigencia aproximada de una norma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions returning metadata and links and advises confirmation in official source, implying data may not be authoritative. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary details. It is not wasteful, but it is too brief to be informative, failing to earn its place with substantive 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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, how to interpret results, or what 'estado' entails, leaving critical gaps for correct usage.

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 50% (formato has a description, id_norma does not). The tool description adds no explanation for parameters: it does not clarify what 'id_norma' represents or how to obtain it, nor does it elaborate on the 'formato' options beyond what the schema already states.

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 it returns 'Metadatos de publicación y enlaces a historia LeyChile', clearly indicating it provides publication metadata and links. The name 'estado_norma' implies status, and the description adds a warning to confirm in official sources. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'obtener_norma' or 'normas_relacionadas'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a caution to verify in the official source, which hints at reliability but does not explain context or prerequisites.

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