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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope such as 'VIGENTE', 'no histórico', and 'citable como fuente oficial', but the fragment 'Sin clave. Con clave: hechos + texto completo' is ambiguous and may imply keyed access behavior without schema support.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and compact, but telegraphic fragments such as 'Sin clave. Con clave: hechos + texto completo.' reduce clarity and do not fully earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden. It lists returned fields and explains the index-vs-article mode, but leaves the ambiguous 'clave' behavior unclear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional semantics: omitting 'articulo' returns the article index, while providing it returns article content and facts.

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 resource and scope: consolidated and current BOE article text, and explains the mode without 'articulo' returns an index of current articles. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains the key usage distinction between omitting and providing 'articulo', and excludes historical texts with 'Solo texto en vigor (no histórico)'. It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools for historical or other legal research.

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