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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool only returns tenders 'todavía sin adjudicar', it costs '1 crédito por página', and it supports filtering by 'solo-abiertas'. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists filters and cost. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain, filters, and cost. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior, but the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details. A small gap remains around what fields are returned per result.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the domain context (e.g., 'rubro' values are suministros/servicios/obras/locaciones, 'abiertas' means future opening of offers), but it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Busca'), a precise resource ('llamados a licitación del Estado argentino'), and the key attributes (organismo, objeto, rubro, expediente, fecha de apertura). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on unadjudicated public tenders, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clearly states what the tool searches (unadjudicated Argentine state tenders) and lists filterable dimensions (text, rubro, organismo, solo-abiertas). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context signals and sibling list make the use case clear enough.

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