Buscar ofertas presentadas en licitaciones (DGCP)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'La API descarga varias paginas y filtra localmente' discloses that filtering happens client-side over a multi-page scan, which materially affects how results behave. The note that fields were verified against the real API signals reliability but is meta rather than behavioral.

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?

Purpose and the local-filtering caveat are front-loaded and useful, but the trailing 'Args: termino, codigo_proceso, ...' enumeration merely restates parameter names already fully documented in the schema and earns no place. The 'Campos VERIFICADOS contra la API real' line is filler. Net result is adequate but with avoidable 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?

For a ten-parameter, zero-required filter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and one important behavioral caveat. It does not clarify that all parameters are optional combinable filters, nor how defaults (limite 10, paginas 5) interact with local filtering. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this parameter complexity.

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 all ten parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The 'filtra localmente' / multi-page remark adds real semantic value for interpreting the paginas and limite parameters (paginas controls the fetched window, limite the returned count), which the schema alone does not explain. The redundant 'Args:' name list contributes nothing extra.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it consults proposals/offers submitted by suppliers and competitors in State purchasing processes, and names the underlying endpoint (/ofertas). It clearly distinguishes the resource from sibling lookups like licitaciones, contratos, and proveedores. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 offers concrete use cases ('analizar montos ofertados por competidores, estados de evaluacion y que empresas participaron'), which implies when the tool is valuable. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as dgcp_inteligencia_proceso or dgcp_auditoria_colusion, which overlap in the competitor-analysis space. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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