cita_texto

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description is free to add the operational detail it does: that batching costs 'una pasada de red por norma única' and that citing is blocked without fetched text. The failure-handling behavior is only in the schema (`faltantes`), not the description, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding, and each does distinct work: purpose, precondition, batch guidance. The core verb and resource are front-loaded before any caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does describe the literal text plus bracket and link. It stops short of covering the single-`referencia` miss case (only the batch `faltantes` path is documented), but for a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 concrete examples for both `referencia` and `referencias`, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the batching rationale ('una sola llamada, una pasada de red por norma única'), clarifying why to prefer the array parameter.

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 and resource ('Devuelve el TEXTO LITERAL de una norma citada') plus the return payload (corchete oficial, enlace), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name or contrast with adjacent retrieval tools like bcn_get_ley or bcn_get_codigo, so the distinction is inferred 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?

'Usala antes de citar cualquier artículo: el producto no cita sin texto' gives a concrete precondition for invoking the tool. It also tells the agent when to switch to batch mode via `referencias`. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, so it falls 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.