buscar_procesos_secop2

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states that the tool searches and includes fields like entity, provider, values, and status. It does not disclose pagination, auth needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but not detailed.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses three short paragraphs. It is moderately concise with no fluff, but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant platform emphasis.

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 (15 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, output format (despite output schema existing), and comparisons with sibling tools like buscar_contratos_secop2. Significant gaps remain.

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 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description must compensate. It only explains the nombre_procedimiento parameter and vaguely references entity, provider, values, and status. Most parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 for contracting processes in SECOP II, specifying the resource (processes) and the platform. It distinguishes itself from SECOP I by instructing to search here first, and from siblings like buscar_secop1.

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 provides clear context: search here first before SECOP I, and includes a tip about the nombre_procedimiento field. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like buscar_contratos_secop2 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.