buscar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a cross-source search and returns a light index, but says nothing about result ordering, what the light index contains, how 'limite' behaves, or whether 'sector' scopes results. Those are meaningful gaps for a search 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the search scope before the return/handoff behavior. It is dense but each clause serves a purpose; the parenthetical about 'resumen, alerts y code' could be trimmed slightly.

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?

The tool is a multi-entity search with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and the handoff to ficha(id), but omits parameter semantics and key behavior such as pagination via 'limite' and sector filtering, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for all three parameters (consulta, limite, sector), and the description never mentions any of them or explains their meaning, defaults, or interaction. The description provides no compensation for the undocumented schema.

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 verb (Busca) and enumerates exactly what is searched across: fichas, recetas, necesidades, productos e identificadores. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ficha by stating it returns a light index while detail comes from ficha(id).

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 clearly routes the agent: use this tool for discovery across multiple entity types and then call ficha(id) for detail. It does not explicitly compare against ckan_buscar or codigos, so there is room for more explicit when-not guidance.

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