bcn_get_codigo_historico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consulta' implies a read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about authentication, rate limits, whether historical versions are exhaustive, or the response shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and the historical-date scope front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on sibling routing.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys resource, historical scope, and date format. It omits the fact that a specific article can be requested, and, lacking annotations, does not compensate behaviorally.

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%, so the schema already documents fecha, codigo, and articulo. The description only restates the date format and adds a few código examples (civil, trabajo, cpc, penal), which duplicates the schema's own examples and adds little beyond it. 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?

States a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (Código de la República) with the key scoping qualifier 'en una fecha histórica específica', which implicitly distinguishes it from the current-version sibling bcn_get_codigo. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: the tool is for retrieving a code at a historical point in time. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bcn_get_codigo (current text) or bcn_get_ley_historica (historical law), and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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