Buscar en el BOE por rango de fechas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the hard 31-day maximum range and the fact that all words must match (AND, not OR) across title/department/epígrafe — both are error-preventing details absent from the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint (date range, max 31 days) before the qualifiers. The second sentence delivers concrete examples with no filler; every clause earns its place.

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 4 params, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key constraints an agent needs (range cap, AND semantics, optional sections). The one gap is that it never says what is returned (list of publications, ordering/pagination), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 75%, but the description still adds meaning beyond it: matching is conjunctive ('todas las palabras'), which fields are searched, and that sections are optional. The example 'enfermer*' reveals wildcard/partial matching that the schema does not document.

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 verb ('Busca') and resource ('publicaciones del BOE') and describes the search scope (title, department, epígrafe) plus the AND semantics of the keywords. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like boe_sumario_dia or boe_documento, which the 5-level requires.

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 worked examples ('oposiciones de enfermería', 'licitaciones de software') imply intended scenarios, but they primarily illustrate parameter patterns rather than routing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over boe_sumario_dia or boe_documento, so guidance remains implied.

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