Texto oficial de una norma (XML LeyChile)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'XML oficial' but the 'formato' parameter allows markdown/json, contradicting the implication of fixed XML output. No side effects, auth needs, or error behavior are disclosed.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the key fact 'XML oficial'. However, it could benefit from a brief usage context.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks output format clarification, usage guidance, and behavior details. The output schema is absent, so descriptions must cover return values, but they don't.

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 description adds meaning for 'modo' (lists articles vs. returns text, truncable) and implies 'max_chars' for truncation. However, it does not describe 'id_norma' or 'formato' beyond schema defaults. With 25% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 that the tool retrieves official XML of a norm and distinguishes two modes (index lists articles, body returns text). It is clear about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'obtener_norma'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obtener_norma', 'obtener_articulo', or 'buscar_legislacion'. The description only explains modes, not usage context.

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