listar_bomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses ordering, truncation semantics, deduplication ('gana bomemelilla.es'), fallback behavior when the old portal fails, the cve_oficial=false caveat before 2014, and how to open results with ver_bome/ver_bome_antiguo.

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 text is dense but every sentence carries needed edge-case information, and the main action is front-loaded. It is a single monolithic paragraph rather than structured bullets, which slightly reduces scanability for an agent.

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?

Given two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition is complete: it describes return fields, format of results, source ordering, old-portal-only supplements, fallback warnings, and caveats for identifying bulletins before 2014. A caller has what it needs to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

At 0% schema coverage, the description compensates strongly: it gives accepted date formats, inclusive bounds, default 30-day range, and the effect of wide ranges on the truncated/total fields. It does not spell out the exact behavior when only one of desde/hasta is supplied, and the schema itself has no parameter 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Lista los boletines publicados entre dos fechas', and immediately scopes it to bomemelilla.es plus the old melilla.es catalog. It is clear in isolation but does not explicitly contrast with sibling search/read tools such as buscar_bomes, so the differentiation is left to context.

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 tool's use case is clear: list bulletins by date range, with a default of the last 30 days, a 500-result ceiling, and instructions to narrow the range when 'truncado' is true. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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