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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior: large codes are capped and marked truncated, article mode returns every historical version with the current one flagged, and unknown ids yield found:false rather than an empty success. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action before the mode breakdown and refusal semantics. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical examples and source attribution make it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 and does so thoroughly: metadata fields (rank, department, dates, consolidation status), subject tags, notes, a table of contents, truncation for large codes, and the historical-versions-with-current-flag shape of article mode.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that "article" is a block id drawn from the table of contents and that its presence switches the tool's entire output mode (metadata/TOC vs. historical article text). Concrete examples ("a1" = Artículo 1, "preambulo") reinforce this.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: retrieve one consolidated Spanish law by its BOE id, and explicitly ties itself to the sibling boe_search_law as the source of those ids. An agent can distinguish it from boe_search_law and boe_daily_summary without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use boe_search_law to obtain the id, call without "article" for metadata/TOC, call with "article" (a block id from that TOC) for one article's text. It also states the failure contract (unknown id is refused, never an empty success), leaving little to inference.

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