Buscar páginas de publicaciones del BCE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds data-coverage context (archives reaching back to 2004) and the output-to-next-step relationship, but discloses no auth, rate limit, or pagination behavior beyond that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its catalogs, followed by the single chaining instruction. No filler; the only minor cost is the dense parenthetical enumeration.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description supplies the catalog semantics and the follow-up tool, making it adequate; only the lack of sibling differentiation leaves a small gap.

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 further by explaining what each catalogo value actually contains (indices: bulletins, price/confidence indices, FX, balance of payments; cuentas_nacionales: annual/quarterly/regional accounts, input-output, IMAEC). This adds real meaning beyond the bare enum values in the 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+resource (searching BCE publication pages) and enumerates the two content catalogs (indices, cuentas_nacionales), so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling search_bce_publicaciones, which limits it below 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?

The 'Next: get_bce_pagina_archivos(pagina_id)' clause gives a useful chaining workflow, implying this tool feeds the archive-listing step. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing against the many sibling search tools.

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