bcn_get_codigo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the closed scope of covered sources (a real boundary), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or whether it returns full text versus metadata.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the code enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining scope. Slightly long due to the list, but well structured.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what sources exist but leaves return format, mode behavior (article vs structure), and error handling to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, so the schema already documents 'codigo' (with examples) and 'articulo'. The description's phrase 'artículos o estructura' loosely maps to the optional 'articulo' parameter (omit it to get structure), adding minor meaning but no syntax or format detail.

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?

Clear verb ('Consulta') plus the precise resource ('artículos o estructura de los 9 Códigos... la Constitución Política y el Código Sanitario'), and it enumerates the covered codes so an agent knows the data domain. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like bcn_get_codigo_historico or bcn_get_ley.

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 enumeration of exactly which codes and documents are covered implicitly signals when to use this tool (these sources) and when to look elsewhere, but there is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to bcn_get_ley or bcn_get_codigo_historico, nor any stated prerequisites.

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