read_boe_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it builds URLs automatically and handles both PDF URLs and identifiers. However, it overpromises 'texto COMPLETO' without mentioning the max_pages limit (default 30) or potential truncation for long documents, which is a significant behavioral limitation.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packed with useful details (types of documents, usage triggers, input formats, exclusivity). No filler, though it is slightly dense.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage triggers, input formats, and differentiation from siblings. However, it lacks information about output behavior, potential pagination/truncation issues, and error conditions. Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaningful detail for the 'source' parameter: acceptable formats (URL or BOE identifier), automatic URL construction, and a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's description, warranting a 4.

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 downloads and extracts the complete text of BOE documents, listing specific document types. It also explicitly distinguishes itself as the only tool for non-consolidated documents, differentiating it from siblings like get_consolidated_law.

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 provides explicit usage triggers (when the user asks for 'más detalles', 'el contenido', etc.) and explains input formats. It implies alternatives by noting it is the only tool for non-consolidated texts, but does not explicitly state when to prefer other tools.

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