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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: a cap of 10 results, ordering by earliest closing date, and the fields returned (entidad, plazo, enlace). It does not discuss rate limits or empty-result behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping before filters and returns, with no filler. Every clause (UIT limit, ordering, returned fields) carries information an agent needs.

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 with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, the result cap, and the ordering, so an agent knows what comes back. Coverage is strong, though permissions or pagination behavior is not addressed.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the filter axes ('palabra, región y tipo'), adding no syntax or format detail, and 'tipo' is a loose synonym for the schema's 'objeto' field.

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 ('Busca pedidos de cotización abiertos de contratos menores') with a hard scoping rule (hasta 8 UIT, sin licitación) that separates it from a general bidding search like buscar_licitaciones. It does not name the sibling tool explicitly, but the domain boundary is clear enough for an agent to tell them apart.

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 implies the use case (finding minor-contract quote requests to bid on) and lists the available filters, but never states when to prefer this tool over buscar_licitaciones or when it is inappropriate. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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