Ultimas licitaciones publicadas (DGCP)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: the DGCP data-refresh cutoffs (00:00, 07:00, 14:00, 21:00) and the resulting lag for anything published after the last cutoff. It does not cover pagination or result-size behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and ordering, usage triggers, then the data-freshness caveat. Nothing is padding, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns and the recency scope) is front-loaded.

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 six-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, ordering and the important data-lag caveat. Return-content hints (date/time and time remaining to bid) partially compensate for the missing output schema; nothing critical is absent, though pagination/size behavior is left to the schema.

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 six parameters are already fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema (its mention of ordering and cutoffs is not parameter-related).

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 and resource ('Devuelve lo ULTIMO publicado en compras publicas de RD') plus the ordering ('del mas reciente al mas antiguo') and returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the dgcp_buscar_licitaciones search sibling via the recency framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases in quotes ('dame la ultima licitacion', 'que salio hoy', 'lo nuevo de esta semana') that map cleanly onto recency-intent queries. It gives clear when-to-use context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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