Buscar en todas las fuentes de Ecuador

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a cross-source aggregation step that fans out to multiple backends, and its results are meant to be resolved via get_* tools. It does not mention result caps or rate behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ending with the concrete next step. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose plus the drill-down path. It could be slightly stronger by naming a condition under which a targeted source search is preferable, but for a simple federated search it is nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents query (Spanish terms), limit (default 5, max 10), and format (text/json). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('search') and explicitly enumerates the resource scope: CKAN datasets, organizations, gob.ec trámites/regulations, SERCOP contracts, and SGR risk events. The word 'Unified' plus the source list clearly identifies it as a federated meta-search distinct from the source-specific siblings.

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?

'First-step search' plus 'Drill down afterwards with the source-specific get_* tools' tells the agent where this fits in the workflow and points to the follow-up alternatives. It does not explicitly say when to skip this in favor of a targeted search_* sibling, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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