Plazos que vencen

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds the single most important behavioral trait: results are partial, because deadlines expressed as 'veinte días hábiles desde la publicación' cannot be computed and are silently absent. It even warns against telling the user nothing else is due, which prevents a real downstream error.

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?

Purpose and the two usage scenarios come first, then the critical caveat, then the Args block. The IMPORTANT paragraph is long but earns its place; the Args block mildly repeats schema defaults but compensates for the empty schema titles.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described; what remains — scope, non-exhaustiveness, and both parameter meanings — is fully covered. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the results without guessing.

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% — parameters are bare 'Dias'/'Limite' integers — so the description carries the full burden, and it does: dias is a window in natural days from today, limite caps results. Both are explained; only limite lacks a note on truncation behavior.

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 concrete resource (convocatorias con plazo abierto) and a precise filter (cierre dentro de N días), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name search_convocatorias as the broader alternative, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case — '¿qué se me acaba pronto?' or a weekly review — which is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing to search_convocatorias for the full list.

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