Buscar proveedores o clientes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond confirming it is a lookup. It does not disclose match behavior (exact vs partial), result limits, pagination, or what an empty result means — all relevant for a search tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than being purely a strength.

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 search tool with no output schema, the definition omits what is returned (entity list and fields), whether results are paginated or capped, and how partial matching works. The annotation covers only safety, leaving the functional contract thin.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates somewhat: 'proveedores o clientes' implicitly maps to the required 'tipo' enum, 'nombre' to 'texto', and 'NIF' to 'nif'. It still gives no syntax for NIF or clarifies matching rules, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 ('Busca') and resource ('proveedores o clientes') plus the two lookup keys (nombre, NIF). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling invoice tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, whether one of texto/nif takes precedence, or what happens when both are supplied. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'Busca'.

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