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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that BOE skips Sundays and some holidays and that such dates return found:false rather than an empty success, and it describes the return shape (section/department grouping, BOE id and title). Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); response size and rate limits remain undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before source attribution and the edge-case caveat. Every clause carries information — scope, granularity, source, and failure mode — with no 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 only one parameter, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains what is returned (grouped dispositions with BOE id and title) and the key failure mode (non-publication days return found:false). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage already documenting the YYYY-MM-DD format and example. The description only reinforces that the date is a publication date via the non-publication caveat, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 concrete verb+resource: the day's table of contents for one BOE issue, listing every disposition and announcement. The scope (one day, whole issue) makes it inherently distinct from boe_law and boe_search_law, though those siblings are never named to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is strongly implied — reach for this when you want the full index of a single day's publications — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of boe_law/boe_search_law as alternatives for narrower lookups.

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