Buscar páginas de publicaciones del BCE

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, open-world, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the resource scope (archives dating to 2004) and the follow-up call, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or result size, and no output schema exists to cover that gap.

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 with the resource named first and the workflow directive last; the parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item is informative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a result looks like, but it only states the pages contain file archives. It does cover resource scope and the next call, which is enough to decide to use it, but return-shape details are missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the enum values: "indices" is unpacked as sector bulletins, price/confidence indices, FX and balance of payments (some back to 2004), and "cuentas_nacionales" as annual/quarterly/regional accounts, input-output and IMAEC. That enriches the enum semantics beyond the schema's bare labels.

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 (search) and resource (BCE publication pages) and enumerates the two catalog groupings it covers, so an agent knows it targets archival publication pages rather than indicators or series. It does not directly differentiate itself from other BCE search siblings like search_bce_indicadores or search_bce_iem.

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?

Provides an explicit next-step routing ("Next: get_bce_pagina_archivos(pagina_id)"), which tells the agent how this tool fits into a two-call workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against the other BCE search tools.

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