get_auxiliary_table

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Consultar') and lists valid table names, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what the name suggests. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, leaving some gaps.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and the Args list is concise and directly useful. Minor typos do not affect structure or readability.

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 simple lookup tool, the description covers the purpose, the relevant table names, and how the resulting codes are used. It lacks details on the response schema, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The reference to a tool not among siblings may cause slight confusion.

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?

The description adds all valid values for `table_name` in the Args section, which the schema does not provide. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 consults auxiliary tables available in the BOE API and enumerates the specific categories of codes (subjects, scopes, consolidation states, etc.). This makes the function distinct from its siblings, which deal with law lists, sections, and summaries, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicitly says the codes can be used in searches via `search_consolidated_laws_list`, giving a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops at clear context without explicit when-not.

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