Oportunidades abiertas para mi empresa (por rubro UNSPSC)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted by nearest closing date and it reports the percentage of open processes covered. It does not mention rate limits or result format, but adds meaningful traits over the annotations.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core question it answers, followed by mechanism and differentiator. Every sentence carries information, though it is a fairly long run-on block that could be broken up.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return behavior; it does so by stating ordering (nearest closing) and coverage reporting. With 6 parameters and 0 required, it explains the main default flow (RPE-derived rubros), though it does not spell out defaults for limite or behavior when no codes/RPE are resolvable.

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 coverage is 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the relationship between the RPE-based auto-selection and manually supplied codes ('Toma TODOS los rubros UNSPSC registrados de tu empresa en el RPE (o los codigos que indiques)'), clarifying how rpe_o_rnc and codigos_unspsc interact.

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+scope: 'licitaciones ABIERTAS ahora mismo puedo ofertar' by crossing registered UNSPSC rubros against recently published processes still receiving offers. It also contrasts itself with a word-based search ('encuentra oportunidades que una busqueda por palabras pierde'), which distinguishes it from search-style 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?

Frames usage around the question 'which open tenders can I bid on now' and implicitly excludes keyword-search approaches by noting it finds what word searches miss. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. buscar_licitaciones vs ultimas_licitaciones) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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