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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical content the tool surfaces (transparency, award ratio, risk signals), which is useful context, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what permissions or identifiers are needed, or how it behaves operationally.

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, front-loaded with what the tool computes and followed by the decision purpose. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat marketing-flavored rather than operational.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description roughly characterizes the outputs. However, for a single-parameter tool it leaves the parameter unexplained and provides no operational or selection context, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0% and the single parameter organismo_id has no description in the schema. The description never mentions the parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; an agent must infer that organismo_id identifies the buyer being profiled.

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 specifies what the tool reveals about a public buyer: its transparency history, its call-to-award ratio, and risk signals. That is a concrete content scope, clearly distinct from the product- and price-oriented siblings. It lacks an explicit verb+resource framing, but the purpose 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?

It gives one clear use case ('decidir si conviene trabajar con él antes de mirar el precio'), which implies the decision context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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