rastrear_vigencia_norma

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 discloses the core behavior (tracking changes over time) but omits details like error handling, network requirements, or output format. This is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose but does not explain the return structure or edge cases. It is adequate for basic use but lacks completeness for an AI agent to fully understand output behavior.

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?

The input schema already fully describes each parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds example values and explains the date range behavior (e.g., default to today), which provides marginal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'rastrea' and clearly defines the resource 'norma en el BORA' with a precise goal: to detect modifications, regulations, suspensions, or derogations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_norma_primera_seccion' by emphasizing chronological tracking.

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 tracking regulatory changes but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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