buscar_bome_antiguo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: literal case-insensitive search, no bulletin-number search, date-filtering behavior after search, portal ordering, limite default/max, and the meaning of total and truncado. It also describes the returned fields and pagination semantics.

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?

Although long, every sentence adds operational value: scope, sibling routing, search behavior, result fields, parameter formats, and truncation handling. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter and return semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to explain return values, which it does in detail (cve_boletin, fecha, numero, ruta, paginas, url_pdf, dboid_boletin, url_ficha). It also covers coverage dates, search limitations, pagination, and how to read PDF pages with leer_pdf. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: texto constraints (3-200 characters, case-insensitive), desde/hasta accepted formats (AAAA-MM-DD or DD/MM/AAAA), date-filter semantics, and limite default/maximum. This gives an agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca artículos en el portal antiguo del BOME (melilla.es)', and defines the temporal coverage. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it does not search by bulletin number and points to ver_bome_antiguo or listar_bomes for that.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Úsalo para cualquier cosa anterior a 2018' and explains why, since bomemelilla.es is incomplete there. It also names alternatives and gives practical advice like using concrete terms because the portal returns everything on one page.

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