borme_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 mentions each entry includes a PDF, but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Since it's a read operation, it's not destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, uses bullet-like list for acts, and has no redundant words. Three short paragraphs effectively convey the tool's scope.

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 that an output schema exists (context says 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. It mentions the PDF inclusion, which adds value. For a simple query tool, the description is sufficient.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the date format and partial province text. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 BORME daily summary, lists types of acts (constitutions, appointments, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like boe_sumari which covers BOE instead of BORME.

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?

It states usefulness for investigating corporate activity and cross-referencing with public contracts, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like boe_sumari or cercar_contractes.

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