bcn_get_codigo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context on the corpus boundary (which codes exist) and hints that omitting the article parameter yields structure rather than text, but says nothing about result size, pagination or full-text vs summary returns.

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 verb and the queryable universe; no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is long but earns its place by defining valid inputs.

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-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the definition supplies enough: corpus scope, input universe, and the article-vs-structure distinction. It lacks only operational details such as return format and pagination, which are minor here.

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% with only two parameters, and the description goes beyond the schema's illustrative examples by enumerating the complete valid set of code names plus the Constitución and Código Sanitario, effectively supplying the missing enum. The 'estructura' wording also clarifies what happens when 'articulo' is omitted.

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 ('Consulta'), the resource type (artículos o estructura) and enumerates exactly which codes are covered, so an agent knows this reaches the 9 Códigos, the Constitución and the Código Sanitario. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from close siblings such as bcn_get_ley and bcn_get_codigo_historico, which an agent must infer from the scope wording.

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 implied by the scope statement: consult a code by name, optionally drilling into a single article. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion pointing to bcn_get_ley for individual laws or bcn_get_codigo_historico for prior versions, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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