Leyes promulgadas (Parlamento)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope and behavior details beyond annotations: the 1985 coverage boundary, accent-insensitive title search, date format, and that the return value points to the updated IMPO text.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the search modes and return value. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so the description need not explain return structure or safety profile in detail. It covers the main query modes and scope; the only notable omission is the meaning and effect of the 'cantidad' parameter.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the title-search, date-range, and number parameters, but does not explain 'cantidad' or its default limit, leaving one of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly states the resource and scope: promulgated laws since 1985, searchable by title text, date range, or number. It also says it returns the link to the updated IMPO text. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: search by title text (accent-insensitive), by date range in AAAA-MM-DD format, or by number. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the query modes are explicit enough for an agent to select the tool.

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