leer_documento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the returned content (text, subjects, references), but does not mention permissions, auth needs, rate limits, or other operational traits beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a focused pagination tip. No unnecessary wording.

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?

For a read tool with an output schema, the description covers content, id format, recency use, and pagination. The omission of `max_caracteres` is a minor gap, but the rest is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `id` format (BOE-A-AAAA-NNNN) and `inicio` as a character offset for pagination, but omits `max_caracteres` entirely.

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+resource: returns the text of a provision published in the official gazette by its BOE id, including subjects and references. The sibling `leer_norma` is not named or contrasted, so the agent must infer the distinction from the recency hint.

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?

Explicitly says it is useful for recently published texts that may not yet be consolidated, and explains that long texts should be paginated with `inicio`. It does not name `leer_norma` or other alternatives as when-not alternatives, but the context is clear.

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