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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the OECE API does not filter server-side, that filtering happens locally, that each page returns 20 records, and that paginas is capped at 1–10. This is exactly the cost/latency context an agent needs before requesting many pages. It stops short of describing response fields or total-count behavior.

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 the operation, then the key behavioral caveat, then compact Args. Nothing is padded; the only minor dead weight is the formulaic Args formatting for just two parameters.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more than it does. It covers inputs and the 20-record page granularity, but never says what a returned record looks like or whether results include anything beyond matches, leaving the agent to discover the return shape empirically.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: consulta is explained as matching comprador, título, descripción or OCID, and paginas is bounded to 1–10. It omits the schema's default of 5 pages, which would be useful for callers deciding whether to pass the argument at all.

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 contratación) plus the search surface (comprador, título, descripción u OCID). It is distinguishable from contrataciones_ultimas (latest listings) and contratacion_detalle (single record), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the agent infers this is the tool for text queries when it doesn't already know an OCID or want the latest listings. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools that cover detail lookup and recent listings.

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