secop_spider_crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'asíncrono'. It does not say whether the crawl hits the live network, how long it may run, whether it needs credentials, or if it is rate-limited — all critical for a web-crawling operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The brevity is under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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 values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained — crawl behavior, network implications, and parameter meaning are all missing.

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% with 4 parameters (seed_url, max_links, category_filter, follow_internal_depth), none of which are explained in the description. 'clasificando enlaces' faintly hints at link handling and max_links, but the seed URL, depth control, and filter semantics are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb ('Ejecuta') and resource ('Spider web asíncrono') scoped to SECOP II / Colombia Compra Eficiente, which gives a rough sense of the action. However, 'clasificando enlaces y __VIEWSTATE' is internal jargon that will not mean much to an agent, and nothing distinguishes this crawling tool from siblings like secop_search_processes or secop_inspect_opportunity.

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?

There is no indication of when an agent should crawl versus use the more targeted siblings secop_search_processes or secop_inspect_opportunity. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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