Leyendo el texto del dispositivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: paragraphs are 1-indexed inclusive, ranges are the paging mechanism, returned content includes metadata (sumilla, tipo, numero, sector, fecha), and there is no paragraph cap. It omits error behavior (invalid op/cuadernillo), what auto-resolution means on failure, and any auth or rate considerations, leaving meaningful gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then a per-argument list – a sensible ordering with little waste. There is minor tension between 'dosis controladas' and 'Sin tope de parrafos: usa rangos razonables', which slightly muddies an otherwise tight description.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover what a caller needs: purpose, the paragraph-paging model, return content (text + metadata), and all four arguments. What is missing is guidance on how to obtain 'op'/cuadernillo correctly (the sibling lookup tools) and any error or edge behavior, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 the parameters, and it largely does: cuadernillo is optional and auto-resolved from OP, op is the orden de publicación, and desde/hasta are an inclusive 1-indexed paragraph range. The added semantics (optionality, indexing convention, auto-resolution) are not in the schema; only 'op' remains thinly described as just 'numero de orden'.

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+resource: retrieve the text of a dispositivos (device/legal item) paragraph by paragraph, plus its metadata. The 'texto' scope implicitly distinguishes it from obtener_dispositivo (metadata only) and obtener_cuadernillo_texto (whole-quadernillo text), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a contextual cue for use – 'dosis controladas (para documentos largos sin saturar el contexto)' and 'Sin tope de parrafos: usa rangos razonables' – which hints at pagination strategy. However, it never says when to prefer this over obtener_dispositivo or obtener_cuadernillo_texto, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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