bcn_get_codigo_historico

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool consults, returns the effective version, provides an official link, and optionally returns article text. This is transparent enough for a read-only historical lookup, though it does not detail error handling or access requirements.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a concrete example without fluff. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (effective version, official link, optional article text) and gives a realistic use case. It does not describe failure modes or edge cases, so it is not fully complete, but it is sufficient for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic value by indicating that 'articulo' is optional and providing examples of valid 'codigo' values, but these largely mirror the schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Consulta'), a specific resource ('un Código de la República'), and a distinguishing scope ('versión vigente a una fecha histórica'). It also clarifies what it returns, which differentiates it from sibling tools like bcn_get_codigo 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 description gives a clear use case ('Ideal para ver cómo cambió una norma') and an example, so an agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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