ver_bome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the return structure, the pre-2016 missing sumario quirk, the site's occasional omission of articles, and the per-gap request behavior of recuperar_ocultos.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: main purpose first, then output structure, edge cases, and alternative tooling. Dense but not bloated.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return structure, parameter semantics, historical data caveats, and a key sibling alternative, making the tool safely invocable by an agent.

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%, but the description compensates fully: it explains the cve format (BOME-B-AAAA-N or BOME-BX-AAAA-N) and defines recuperar_ocultos by describing exactly what happens when true and where results are returned.

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 action and resource: 'Muestra un boletín ... con su árbol de artículos', and specifies the accepted CVE forms. The mention of the article tree and final routing to leer_articulo differentiates it from sibling tools such as leer_boletin and leer_articulo.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (to view a bulletin with its article tree) and explicitly routes article-text requests to leer_articulo. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ver_bome_antiguo or leer_boletin, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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