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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the per-page credit cost ('Cuesta 1 crédito por página'), the restriction to unadjudicated calls, and the returned fields. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but as a search tool, these are acceptable gaps.

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 sentences with the first front-loading the verb and resource. It efficiently packs scope, fields, filters, and cost without redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, filters, cost, and returned fields. It omits minor details like sorting or default page size, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 80% (4 of 5 properties have descriptions). The description adds meaning by stating that parameters function as filters ('Filtrable por texto, rubro, organismo y solo-abiertas') and by acknowledging pagination cost, partially compensating for the undocumented 'pagina' parameter.

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 opens with 'Busca llamados a licitación del Estado argentino' which clearly states the verb (search) and the specific resource (Argentine government tender calls). It lists key attributes (organismo, objeto, rubro, expediente, fecha de apertura) and the scope 'todavía sin adjudicar', distinguishing it from sibling tools that search people or companies.

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 a clear context for use: searching unadjudicated tender calls with specific filters. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by domain, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it.

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