buscar_norma_primera_seccion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'sin pasos intermedios' (no intermediate steps), indicating directness, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, error handling, or rate limits. With 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions partially compensate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a value-add ('sin pasos intermedios'). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is brief and relies heavily on schema for parameter understanding. It covers the core functionality but lacks contextual details about result format, pagination, or limitations.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by mentioning search by number and/or year but does not elaborate on other parameters like organismo, materia, or fecha. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches directly in the Primera Sección for norms by number and/or year, listing examples like decrees, resolutions, laws. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_avisos' which focus on notices, but could be more explicit about the exact database scope.

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 implies usage for searching norms in the first section but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given sibling tools, the context suggests separate use cases, but no direct guidance is provided.

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