texto_completo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the primary route (documento word), the fallback route (texto del detalle), truncation behavior with siguiente_offset, and that desde_final returns the tail. It omits any note on permissions, rate limits, or failure modes beyond the word/detalle fallback.

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 structured Args/Devuelve sections that each earn their place. Slightly verbose in the route explanation, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 enumerates every return field (ok, id, url_web, codigoNorma, fechaPublicacion, dispositivoLegal, texto, total_caracteres, texto_truncado, siguiente_offset) and explains pagination end-to-end. An agent has everything needed to call and consume this reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the four parameters — and it does: id format with an example, offset as start character, max_chars with 0 = default and its link to siguiente_offset, and desde_final with the reviewing-decision rationale. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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: returns the FULL TEXT of a norm or jurisprudence from SPIJ, which is clearly more than a summary. It distinguishes itself from the search siblings by noting the 'id' comes from buscar_*, but it never contrasts itself with closer siblings like detalle_norma or estructura_norma, leaving that boundary implicit.

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?

Clear context: use it after buscar_* to fetch an id and retrieve the whole document. It also gives a concrete usage tip (combinar desde_final=True con max_chars=3000 para leer el RESUELVE de una sentencia). No explicit when-not guidance or statement about when detalle_norma would be preferable.

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