borme_lookup

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key behavioral details: it covers 40M+ acts from 2009-2026, returns act count, key officers, founding date, and events. It also specifies the query format (CIF without ES prefix). This is transparent, though it could mention rate limits or data freshness.

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 concise, well-structured with line breaks for examples, and uses front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 the output schema exists (context signals), the description adequately covers input format, output summary (acts count, officers, events), and scope. It is complete for this simple tool with one parameter.

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 sole parameter 'query' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining it can be a company name or Spanish CIF without the ES prefix, with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool looks up Spanish mercantile acts from BORME, providing specific use cases like 'who founded X?' and examples. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., entity_lookup, verify_vat) by focusing on BORME records.

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 includes explicit usage triggers (e.g., 'when user asks...') and example queries, which is clear guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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