Historial del BORME

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the subscription-tier requirement, which is genuinely new behavioral context, but says nothing about historical coverage limits or ordering of the returned acts.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then illustrates the return content; the trailing ellipsis signals the list is non-exhaustive without padding. The act-type enumeration slightly lengthens it but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 one-parameter, fully-annotated read tool with no output schema, the description enriches the picture by naming the kinds of records returned. Missing only minor operational detail such as volume or chronological ordering of the history.

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 100% and the single cif parameter is fully documented in Spanish (format, spaces and hyphens accepted, example). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (retrieving BORME-published acts for a company) and enumerates the concrete event types returned, which makes the tool's scope understandable at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_company, though BORME is distinctive enough to stand alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for consulting a company's official gazette history. It does add a real gating condition ('Plan Pro o superior'), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_company or get_risk_profile, nor any exclusions.

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