dogc_cercar_normativa

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 not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination details, rate limits, or error handling. The description is too brief to inform the agent about potential side effects or constraints.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and covers key filters. It is a single paragraph without unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 6 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain pagination (offset/limit) or free text search, nor does it provide guidance on combining filters. More detail would improve 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions three filters (titol, rang, any) but does not explain limit, offset, or cerca_lliure. While the schema covers them, the description adds little value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 regulations (normativa) in the DOGC, specifies the types (lleis, decrets, etc.), and mentions filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target other official journals like BOE or BORME.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for DOGC regulations, which implicitly tells the agent not to use it for other data sources. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools for other sources.

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