Buscar proveedores en el RPE (DGCP)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, notably that the API downloads multiple pages and filters locally, and that fields are verified against the real /proveedores endpoint. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds useful behavioral notes. The 'Args:' list is somewhat redundant given the 100% schema coverage, since it just repeats parameter names, but the overall text is concise and not bloated.

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 nine-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, verifiable fields, and local pagination behavior. It does not explain the return shape, but no output schema exists and the search nature makes a detailed return description less critical.

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 nine parameters with types, bounds, defaults, and examples. The description merely lists parameter names under 'Args:' without adding syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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: consulting/searching companies and individuals in the RPE. It clearly distinguishes the resource (proveedores) from other sibling search tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives. This is clear but lacks the sibling differentiation that would merit a 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?

Usage is implied through the listed verification capabilities (RPE, RNC, MIPYME, rubros, contact data, constancia oficial), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as dgcp_radiografia_proveedor. The agent can infer the tool's role, but must decide context independently.

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