leer_texto_boja

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real caveats: the text comes from the BOJA website, may omit images or tables, and the signed PDF (pdf_oficial) is the authentic version. Pagination behavior is also surfaced via desde/max_caracteres. It omits return-format details, but those are covered by the output schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose, then the important authenticity caveat, then per-argument documentation. Every sentence carries information. The Args block is slightly verbose for three simple parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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 paginated read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the data provenance, the authenticity caveat, and how to page through long texts. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists. Only the relationship to obtener_norma is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: enlace_o_id is explained as an id from buscar_normativa or a BOJA URL, desde as the character offset for pagination, and max_caracteres as the fragment size with the valid 1000-100000 range. All three parameters are semantically richer than the bare schema.

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 verb (lee), resource (texto íntegro de una disposición) and source (BOJA), so an agent knows immediately this returns full text rather than metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling obtener_norma, which is presumably the metadata counterpart, 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the id is sourced 'de buscar_normativa' and pagination params exist for long texts, which signals when to use this tool. However there is no explicit when-not or direct comparison against siblings like obtener_norma. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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