buscar_acf

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 value: pagination semantics (15 rows per page, 'index' global and continuous) and session reuse behavior (re-searching with different filters keeps the same 'ses' without emitting a new id). It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions, and read-only nature is only implied by 'Busca'.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, then Args and Devuelve are cleanly separated, and each parameter line carries distinct information. It is dense but appropriate for a 12-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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-param tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters, pagination, session behavior, and even enumerates return fields (entidad, fecha_publicacion, tipo, objeto, descripcion, condiciones, nro_items, plazo_dias, fecha_aprox_conv). Only tool-selection guidance against siblings is missing.

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 the description is the only documentation, and it defines all 12 parameters: objeto with its four allowed values, tipo, entidad, sigla, descripcion, the four date filters with the dd/mm/aaaa format, pagina (15 rows/page), paginas (range 1..8), and ses (session semantics). This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search future contracting announcements (ACF) published by entities in SEACE, with the acronym expanded. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling search tools (buscar_procesos, buscar_pac, buscar_ocos), though the reference to buscar_procesos for return format implies a family relationship.

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-to-use guidance and no named alternative for ACF-specific queries versus buscar_procesos or buscar_pac. The only usage signal is that 'objeto' is flagged OBLIGATORIO, which is a parameter constraint rather than tool-selection guidance.

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