Buscar procesos de contratación pública (SERCOP)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the min-3-character constraint, but says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or rate behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and its filters front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Six parameters are fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly sufficient, only missing guidance on paging through large result sets and when to follow up with get_contrato_info.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema with defaults and an enum for format. The description restates the same fields (keyword, year, buyer, supplier) without adding format, syntax, or interaction detail, so the 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 and resource ('Search SERCOP public procurement (OCDS)') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (keyword, year, buyer, supplier). An agent can distinguish it from get_contrato_info or search_companias, though no sibling is named 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 implied by the filters listed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what it is not for, and no pointer to the sibling get_contrato_info for retrieving a single contract's details after a search.

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