Contratos públicos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the external data source (consistent with openWorld) and the 'Plan Business' subscription requirement, which is genuine access context, but says nothing about return shape, pagination limits beyond the schema defaults, or result completeness.

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 compact fragments with no wasted words and the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing 'Plan Business.' is terse but does carry information, so nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a contract record contains or how results are paginated, but it does not. Annotations cover safety and the source is named, so it is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.

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%: cif, page and limit all have descriptions with defaults and format notes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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+resource: public-sector contracts awarded to a company, and names the underlying source dataset (Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_company or get_borme_history, though it never explicitly references those alternatives.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it wants public procurement records for a company. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as get_borme_history, nor any exclusion. 'Plan Business' hints at a tier prerequisite but is not framed as a usage condition.

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