boe_sumari

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation returning documents for a date. However, it does not disclose whether the response is paginated, has rate limits, or what happens with empty results. This is a minor gap for a tool that may return large datasets.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and sections, followed by a practical cross-referencing tip. Every sentence is meaningful, no fluff. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return format. It covers purpose, parameters, and a use case. Missing explicit notes on empty results or pagination, but overall sufficient for a straightforward query 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?

Schema descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing usage tips (e.g., trying recent working days for dates, listing section codes with examples). This extra context helps the agent select correct values.

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 it consults the daily BOE summary and lists specific sections (2A, 5A, 1) with their uses. It is a specific verb-resource combination ('Consulta el sumari diari'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boe_contractes or boe_nomenaments, which could be inferred.

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 description provides context on when to use (finding appointments, contracts, general provisions) and even suggests cross-referencing with other tools for fraud detection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving room for confusion with more specific BOE tools.

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