textokit_normativa_ar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does add genuinely useful behavior: per-call pricing of 0.005 USDC, x402 payment on Base from the caller's wallet, and a free sample escape hatch. It omits failure/payment-failure behavior, any rate or coverage limits, and the shape of returned notices beyond 'excerpts'.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and pricing/sample follow as secondary facts. Nothing repeats the schema.

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 three-parameter, read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost model, and an alternative. The main remaining gap is return-value shape: 'notices with excerpts' hints at it but does not say what fields or how many results come back beyond the limit.

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 100%, so 'query', 'date' (daily mode, YYYY-MM-DD) and 'limit' (1-10, default 3) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as query syntax, stemming, or what a date-scoped call returns relative to a keyword call, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Boletin Oficial search: official gazette notices with excerpts') and pins the jurisdiction to Argentina, which separates it from the sibling source tools like textokit_cartas_ar and textokit_bcra_indicadores. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling (textokit_sample), so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 only routing guidance is cost-based: pay per call, or use textokit_sample for a free sample. There is no statement of when this source is the right one versus the other source-bound tools, and no mention that supplying 'date' switches to a different (daily) retrieval mode. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained.

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