leer_boletin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers caching of the PDF, pagination cut behavior (cortada=true), and the sentinel semantics of 'siguiente'. It also flags the no-PDF edge case for 2014-2016 bulletins.

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 dense but each sentence adds a distinct fact: scope, length/chunking, cache, old-bulletin exception, and pagination contract. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

It explains the pagination loop, cache behavior, old-bulletin alternative, and response signals (cortada, siguiente) despite no output schema. It could be more complete by defining cve and the metadata fields returned, but the operational guidance is solid.

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?

The description defines max_caracteres with range/default and explains desde_pagina/desde_caracter through the 'siguiente' continuation contract. However, the required cve parameter is not described, so an agent must infer its meaning from sibling tools or context.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (leer) and resource (boletín entero/PDF) and notes it returns metadata, distinguishing it from article-level tools like leer_articulo. The later mention of 2014-2016 bulletins reinforces the boundary.

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 explicitly says ordinary bulletins are ~35 pages and should be read in chunks, and instructs that 2014-2016 bulletins without PDF should be handled with leer_articulo. It also gives a concrete pagination protocol for calling again when 'siguiente' is not null.

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