Subvencióname

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description nonetheless adds a data-scope constraint not present in annotations ('solo empresas, no personas físicas'), which prevents wasted queries. It does not describe return format, but that is a minor gap against the annotated safety profile.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it is, what it is for, and the hard scope limit. The resource definition is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. What remains missing is any hint of the result shape (e.g., contract fields returned), which an agent might want given 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 description coverage is 100%, including the important subtlety that 'Con NIF se ignora el texto'. The description only restates the query axes and adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource in Spanish: 'Contratos públicos ya adjudicados' (already-awarded public contracts), with the search axes (NIF, texto, provincia). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings buscar_licitaciones and buscar_convocatorias, which cover pre-award stages.

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?

'Sirve para ver qué gana una empresa y cuándo vence cada contrato' gives a concrete use case, and 'Solo empresas: no hay datos de personas físicas' is an explicit scope exclusion. It does not name the sibling alternatives directly, so it stays below a 5.

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

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered; the description adds the source scope (BDNS plus regional sources) and enumerates returned fields (título, órgano, importe, plazo, código), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination totals or result limits, but the schema partially covers paging.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then the most useful filter hint. No filler, though the third sentence is parameter advice that could sit closer to the filtering context.

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?

For a 10-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data sources, return fields, and one key filter, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps (paging behavior, permission assumptions) are minor for a public open-data query.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one piece of parameter meaning, the «abiertas» tip for filtering to still-open deadlines, and otherwise defers entirely to the schema.

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 and resource (buscar subvenciones y ayudas públicas de España) and names the data sources (BDNS y fuentes autonómicas), so an agent knows exactly what is being searched. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like buscar_licitaciones or ver_convocatoria, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the siblings; it never says whether this is a discovery tool whose results should be followed up with ver_convocatoria, nor when to prefer it over buscar_licitaciones or buscar_adjudicaciones. The only usage-like sentence addresses the «abiertas» parameter rather than tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context by naming the aggregated sources (Plataforma de Contratación, TED, BOE) and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination limits or result volume, keeping it at a solid 3.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first states what is searched and the scope, the second states the return payload. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (objeto, órgano, importe sin IVA, fecha límite), covering the missing return documentation. The main remaining gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but nothing needed to call the tool is absent.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that 'orden' affects ranking or how província/cpv interact) beyond the return fields it lists.

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 names a specific verb (buscar) and resource (contratos públicos de España) and scopes it to open-bidding listings, which implicitly separates it from buscar_adjudicaciones (already-awarded contracts). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'plazo de ofertas abierto' — the agent can infer it should use this tool for live tenders versus awarded ones, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing among buscar_adjudicaciones, buscar_convocatorias, and ver_convocatoria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (full record with specific sections), but says nothing about behavior on an invalid/nonexistent code or any lookup constraints, leaving limited added context beyond 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, zero filler, with the resource and its returned sections front-loaded before the usage instruction. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what the record contains, which an agent needs in order to rely on the result. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, it is nearly complete, missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the BDNS format (5-7 digits, example 922483). The description only restates 'por su código BDNS', adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (convocatoria), the key it is looked up by (código BDNS), and enumerates the returned content (beneficiarios, importes, plazos, requisitos, enlace a las bases). It clearly reads as a detail-fetch tool, implicitly distinct from the buscar_* search siblings via 'después de buscar', though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Úsala después de buscar, antes de afirmar un requisito o una fecha' gives a concrete workflow position and a reason to prefer it over asserting facts directly. It stops short of naming alternatives (buscar_convocatorias) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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