search_procurement

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: client-side filtering for year/text/date, newest-first page scanning, bounded page scans (~7s each, 10-40s total), the 'filtering' response block with window_fully_covered, and that each record may be a lot/supplier line.

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 long but every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It is front-loaded with purpose, then filtering details, then performance. Could be slightly tighter, but the complexity warrants the length.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, performance, and prerequisite steps (list_institutions). It lacks explicit guidance on id_estado and id_modalidad beyond schema, but siblings provide context. Overall highly complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filtering mechanism for each parameter group (e.g., 'year, free-text and date-range are applied CLIENT-SIDE', 'fecha_inicio/fecha_fin here DO filter on the actual award date') and the purpose of per_page as max matched results.

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 explicitly states it searches awarded public procurement processes from COMPRASAL, returning key fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_institutions and implies difference from get_process_detail by mentioning lot/supplier lines.

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 extensive guidance: recommends using list_institutions first, explains filtering behavior (client-side vs server-side), suggests passing id_institucion to focus scans, details pagination via 'filtering' block, and notes performance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but alternatives are implied through sibling names.

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