Obtener inciso o literal de un artículo

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions 'aproximado', hinting at approximate results, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could benefit from a bit more structure or detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify output format beyond the schema's 'formato' enum, nor does it explain what 'aproximado' entails or how parameters interact.

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 only 20% (only 'formato' has a description). The description does not compensate for the other 4 parameters (letra, inciso, articulo, id_norma). It fails to explain their roles or how they relate to the extraction.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extrae') and resource ('inciso/literal del texto oficial del artículo'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'obtener_articulo' or 'obtener_texto_norma', which also deal with article text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for extracting a specific subsection, but there are no exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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