Buscando anuncios de contratación futura

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add real context: pagination granularity (15 rows/page, 1..8 pages), session reuse semantics, and the returned fields. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any safety/mutation profile, so it is solid but not complete.

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?

Uses a clear Args/Devuelve structure with the purpose sentence front-loaded, and the length is justified by 12 parameters. No filler sentences, though the arg list is dense rather than prose-optimized.

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 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates well by naming the returned row fields and the pagination/session mechanics. Remaining gaps (auth, rate limits, result count limits) are minor for a read-only search.

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 the description carries the full parameter burden and mostly succeeds: it marks 'objeto' as OBLIGATORIO, supplies its four allowed values (Bien/Consultoria de Obra/Obra/Servicio), gives dd/mm/aaaa formats for the four date params, and explains pagina/paginas/ses behavior. A few entries (sigla, entidad, tipo) are near-tautological, keeping it from a 5.

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 a precisely named resource (ANUNCIOS DE CONTRATACION FUTURA / ACF publicados en el SEACE), so an agent can tell it apart from buscar_procesos at a glance. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tools, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling set (buscar_procesos, buscar_pac, etc.). The only usage-like hint is behavioral (the 'ses' reuse rule), not selection guidance.

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