BONUM Servicios de Ingeniería — proveedor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes contact data and official registrations, but says nothing about volume, formatting, or whether the data is static.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the highest-value content terms are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of thinness, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description's main remaining job is signaling what the response contains, and it enumerates four content categories. A brief note on whether this is a static company profile would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level.

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 content set (experiencia, certificaciones, registros oficiales, datos de contacto) attributed to BONUM, which clearly separates it from siblings like catalogo_servicios or cobertura_geografica. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'retrieves'), so it reads as a label rather than an action statement.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus the other three tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the noun list alone that this is the credentials/contact lookup.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful framing that this is a static internal catalog (closed world) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or matching behavior for the free-text search.

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 the purpose followed by the filtering modes, and the inline examples add signal rather than padding. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only catalog lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and both filter modes adequately. Minor gaps remain: it does not indicate what a result entry contains or whether results are truncated, which an agent might want before deciding to rely on it for exhaustive listings.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains that one parameter filters by category and the other is free-text search, with three illustrative query terms. The categoria enum values are self-documenting in the schema, but the 'buscar' parameter would be opaque without the description's explanation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lista los servicios de BONUM") plus the two filtering axes, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the siblings (capacidades_y_certificaciones, cobertura_geografica, solicitar_cotizacion), so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied clearly: filter by category or free text, with concrete example queries ("PLC", "paletizado", "solar") that show the expected input style. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over capacidades_y_certificaciones or when to escalate to solicitar_cotizacion, and no exclusions are given.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a lookup against a 'zona publicada', but says nothing about what happens when both parameters are left at their empty defaults, nor what the answer looks like beyond a yes/no.

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 padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter contract following immediately. Nothing here needs to be cut or moved.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool answers and how to supply the key input. Remaining gaps are the empty-parameter behaviour and the origin of `servicio_id`, which are minor but real for a tool where both parameters default to empty strings.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully disambiguates `ubicacion` as 'ciudad o estado', but `servicio_id` is only labelled 'opcionalmente' with no indication of where the ID comes from (presumably catalogo_servicios) or what changes when it is supplied.

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: given a city/state and optional service, it reports whether that location falls inside BONUM's published service zone. The intent is immediately graspable and distinct from catalogo_servicios or solicitar_cotizacion, but no sibling is named or explicitly contrasted.

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 the phrasing 'dice si está dentro de la zona publicada' – an agent can infer this is a pre-qualification check before quoting or cataloguing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative tool if the location is outside coverage.

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 this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description adds meaningfully beyond them: a human team reviews the request, prices are not returned, a folio is issued, and fictitious contact data (example.com) is rejected server-side. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate submissions or how the folio is delivered.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its key output behavior, then the critical contact-data constraint. Two of the sentences are dedicated to one parameter, but that guidance is the highest-value content for this tool, so little is wasted.

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 7-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond write semantics, the description covers the outcome and the contact constraint but leaves the required-field set under-explained. An agent could still call it, but only by guessing at servicio_id and fecha_requerida.

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% — every field carries only a title — so the description must carry the explanatory burden, yet it elaborates only on contacto_medio. The other six required-ish fields (empresa, servicio_id, descripcion, ubicacion, contacto_nombre, fecha_requerida) get no semantics at all, most critically servicio_id's source and fecha_requerida's expected format.

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 ("Registra una solicitud de cotización (RFQ)") plus the concrete outcome — it returns a folio and deliberately does not return prices. It also implicitly separates itself from the read-only sibling catalog tools by being a submission action, though it never names them.

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?

Gives real guidance for one case: gather the requester's real contact data first and don't fabricate values. But it never says when to prefer this over the catalog/coverage tools, nor does it tell the agent to fetch servicio_id from catalogo_servicios before submitting, which is the key precondition.

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