Plan Anual de Compras (PACC) de una institucion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (the plan is forward-looking, fields returned) but says nothing about pagination, result caps implied by 'limite', or data freshness. Adequate but not rich beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource definition. The field enumeration is long-ish but earns its place because there is no output schema, so it tells the agent what comes back. Minor redundancy, otherwise tight.

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, describing the returned fields (description, budgeted amount, modality, start date, MIPYME flag) is exactly the right compensation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is behavioral: the 'limite' parameter and result-capping are unexplained anywhere.

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 75% (anio, termino, institucion documented; limite bare). The description does not touch any parameter - it only lists returned fields - so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With high-ish coverage, the baseline 3 is correct and it doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'limite'.

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?

Names a specific resource (the published PACC / annual procurement plan) and its content, with a clear verb sense of 'what the institution PLANS to buy.' The closing line 'Permite anticiparse a las licitaciones antes de que se publiquen' differentiates it from the licitaciones/contratos siblings, which cover already-published events.

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?

The anticipation framing ('anticiparse a las licitaciones antes de que se publiquen') clearly signals when to reach for this tool - for forward-looking planning rather than searching published tenders. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it, so it's not a 5.

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