ver_bome_antiguo

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns url_pdf and articulos with specific fields, and handles ambiguity by returning candidates requiring a repeat call with dboid. This is transparent, though it does not mention error outcomes or side effects (likely none).

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 well-organized: purpose first, then parameter constraints, then ambiguity note, then output details and follow-up tool. No filler; every sentence adds necessary operational info.

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 complexity (ambiguity, multiple output fields, cross-tool usage), the description covers how to identify input, what the response contains, and how to use the returned PDFs. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicit mention of fields (numero, tipo, sumario, ruta, paginas).

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 0%, but the description compensates entirely: explains cve format (BOME-B-AAAA-N or BOME-BX-AAAA-N), source of dboid from other tools, and nuance about pre-2014 CVEs being ambiguous. Gives meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a bulletin from the old portal (melilla.es, 1985 to 12-03-2021) and returns both the full PDF and its articles. It uses a specific verb ('ver') and resource, and distinguishes itself from 'ver_bome' (new portal) by explicitly scoping to 'portal antiguo'.

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?

Explicitly instructs to supply exactly one of 'cve' or 'dboid', explains the CVE format and when dboid should be used, and details the ambiguity handling with 'boletin_ambiguo'. Also tells the user to use 'leer_pdf' for PDFs, giving clear alternate tool usage.

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