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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: the exact fields returned and a hard cap of 10 processes, which is the kind of limit/behavioral disclosure that matters. It stops short of saying how truncation is handled when more than 10 matches exist.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then filters, then the result limit. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the fields produced, and it covers filtering and the 10-item cap. It leaves minor gaps such as sort order beyond 'most recent' and overflow behavior, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions and examples (region examples, palabra examples, an enum for objeto), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Filtra por palabra, región y tipo' merely restates the parameters in prose without adding syntax, format, or default behavior beyond 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?

The description names a specific resource ('buenas pro más recientes de procesos del Estado peruano') and clarifies the jargon by enumerating what is returned: winner, amount, date, and bidder count. It is clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like buscar_licitaciones or buscar_contratos_menores, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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: 'Filtra por palabra, región y tipo' suggests the filtering use case, and 'Hasta 10 procesos' hints at a result cap, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No routing guidance versus the many sibling search tools is provided.

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