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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: a $0.05 USD per-query charge via x402 payment and that results are deterministic ('Sin IA'), which an agent needs before calling. It omits error behavior, rate limits and the shape of the response, leaving meaningful gaps for a paid, unaudited tool.

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?

Four short telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the resource, and each carries information (scope, data sources, no-AI, price). It is efficient, though the fragmentary style is slightly choppy rather than fully structured.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the result categories and states the cost, which covers the essentials. It still does not describe the response structure, what 'señales explicadas' concretely yields, or how failures are surfaced.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already explains the NIT constraint (companies only, not natural persons) and the desde date default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3.

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 (SECOP II contracting radar for Colombia) and enumerates what the result contains: contract history, SECOP I fines, RUES cross-reference and explained signals. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling radar_secop__proveedor, and the verb is implied rather than stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose this over radar_secop__proveedor or verificador_rues, nor any statement of prerequisites beyond the mention that it 'no consulta personas naturales' (which lives in the schema). The cost note gives a weak decision signal but no usage routing.

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