leer_articulo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses pagination behavior, max_caracteres limits, the cortada flag, the siguiente continuation mechanism, the 'fuente=ninguna' case for 2014-2016, and the guarantee that a different article is never returned.

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 long but every sentence carries essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then systematically covers parameter semantics, edge cases, and pagination without redundancy.

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?

For a paginated article reader with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how pagination works, how to continue with 'siguiente', and how to handle exceptional article types and missing historical text.

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. It explains cve, numero, max_caracteres, and the continuation parameters desde_pagina and desde_caracter through the pagination flow. It does not explicitly define the initial meaning of desde_pagina/desde_caracter, but the 'siguiente' instructions make their role clear.

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 'Texto completo de un artículo (anuncio), página a página', which names a specific verb, resource, and mode. It clearly separates this tool from bulletin-level tools like ver_bome or leer_boletin by focusing on individual articles and pagination.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to handle special cases such as extraordinary articles and 2014-2016 articles without text. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and behavior are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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