regdata_borme_corporate_acts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. The description mentions parsing PDFs but lacks details on side effects or limitations.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no superfluous text. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 complexity (PDF parsing) and absence of an output schema, the description explains the output (structured acts) and input format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning fallback behavior or parsing success conditions.

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 schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (including maxItems). The description adds context by explaining the freeform input format (e.g., name, tax ID) and linking to regdata_describe, which adds value 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 specifies the tool's purpose: parsing BORME PDFs into structured corporate acts (incorporations, appointments, etc.). It is clear and distinguishes this Spain-specific tool from other country-specific siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related Spain tools like regdata_spain_company_directory.

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 advises to pass a flat object (name, tax ID, etc.) and suggests calling regdata_describe if unsure of fields. This provides clear usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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