buscar_contratos_secop2

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool returns detailed financial data (values paid, billed, pending) and that it is the most complete dataset. However, it does not disclose safety (likely read-only), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what is in the 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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides key context about data richness and priority. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given 13 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, date formats, value constraints, and output interpretation, even though an output schema exists.

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 0%, so description is critical. Only 'nit_proveedor' is explained as offering exact search. Other parameters like 'entidad', 'proveedor', 'fecha_desde' are not described, leaving their meaning and format unclear.

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 clearly states it searches for electronic contracts in SECOP II and distinguishes from SECOP I by advising to try this first. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_procesos_secop2' which may have overlapping scope.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool before SECOP I and suggests using 'nit_proveedor' for exact searches. It mentions this dataset is most complete for financial execution, but does not cover when to use other related tools.

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