regdata_borme_corporate_acts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions parsing and advanced fields, but does not disclose safety traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, rate limits) or potential issues like PDF format changes. For a read-like operation, more transparency expected.

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 sentences cover purpose and advanced fields. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from features). Overall efficient.

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?

Explains purpose and parameter usage, but lacks details on output format, result structure, pagination, or error handling. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% (all parameters described). Description adds minimal value beyond schema: notes advanced fields accepted via regdata_describe. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Description clearly states the tool parses Spanish BORME Section A PDFs into structured corporate acts, listing specific examples (incorporations, appointments, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from country-specific sibling tools.

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 context that it processes daily PDFs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives are implied by sibling tool names (other countries), but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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