buscar_por_persona

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool searches simultaneously across multiple datasets and prioritizes document numbers, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, aggregation behavior, or result format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then a tip. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 the complexity (4 params, no annotations) and presence of output schema, the description covers the broad search purpose well but lacks parameter details for 'limite' and 'detalle', and does not mention pagination or result handling. Output schema may cover return values, but parameter gaps reduce completeness.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'documento' and 'nombre' search fields, but fails to describe 'limite' (limit) and 'detalle' (detail level) parameters. Missing semantics for half the parameters leaves agents underinformed.

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 the tool searches across all SECOP datasets by document number or name, explicitly listing the datasets covered (SECOP II Procesos, SECOP II Contratos, SECOP II Proveedores, SECOP I). It distinguishes from siblings by being the most comprehensive tool for investigating contracting history, while siblings are more specific.

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 description advises using 'documento' over 'nombre' for reliability, and indicates the tool is for finding all contracts/processes/records for a specific contractor. It provides clear use context but does not explicitly state when to use sibling tools or when not to use this tool.

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