Buscar últimas publicaciones del BCE

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added context earns credit: it discloses the ~30-item recency cap, the editorial-feed nature, and that it returns links. It does not cover ordering/pagination explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence front-loads the resource and scope, then adds the differentiating content type and output note. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain returns or permissions. It is complete enough for a simple read-only search tool, with only minor gaps around ordering/pagination behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters and their enums. The description's 'filterable by title and format' loosely corresponds to the query and formato params but conflates the two distinct format-related fields, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (BCE's most recent reports and bulletins) with a clear scope (~30 most recent) and explicitly differentiates the content type as an 'editorial feed, not data series'. This meaningfully separates it from the many data-series BCE siblings like search_bce_indicadores and search_bce_iem, though it does not name a specific sibling to route against.

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 'editorial feed, not data series' clause implies when this tool is appropriate versus indicator-series tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or list of alternatives despite a crowded BCE sibling set (search_bce_paginas, search_inec_publicaciones, etc.). Usage remains inferential.

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