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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), so the description earns credit by adding the result cap (hasta 10), the sort order (los que cierran antes primero) and the returned fields (entidad, valor estimado, fecha de presentación, enlace). It does not say how to retrieve more than 10 results, but the behavioral disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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 sentences: purpose, filters, then return shape. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 compensates by naming the result fields and the 10-item cap and ordering; annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter meaning. The only gap is what an agent should do to obtain results beyond the 10-item cap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's phrase 'Filtra por palabra, región y tipo de contratación' maps naturally to palabra, region and objeto but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Busca) and resource (procesos de selección abiertos del Estado peruano), enumerating the covered modalities (licitaciones, concursos, comparaciones de precios) and the data source (datos abiertos del OECE). The 'abiertos' scope implicitly separates it from the closed/minor-contract sibling buscar_contratos_menores.

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 lists the available filters (palabra, región, tipo) but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as buscar_contratos_menores or ficha_de_bases, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the search framing rather than guided.

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