Buscando condiciones de contratación

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses page size (15 rows), the maximum consecutive pages per call (1..8), and the session-reuse semantics of 'ses'. It omits permissions, error behavior, and rate limits, but for a search/read tool the pagination and session behavior are the traits an agent most needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly split into an Args block and a Devuelve block, which is easy to scan. Slightly verbose in the ses and anio explanations, but no wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit list of returned row fields (nro, fecha, entidad, descripcion, tipo, codigo, objeto, id_interno) is appropriately included and completes the picture. Combined with the parameter and pagination details, this is sufficient for a search tool, though the required/optional mismatch on anio is unaddressed.

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 must compensate, and it does: all six parameters (ses, anio, tipo, objeto, pagina, paginas) get meaning beyond the bare schema, including an example year, candidate objeto values, an example tipo, and page sizing. Some parameters (e.g., tipo) are only illustrated rather than enumerated, and it labels anio OBLIGATORIO while the schema marks nothing required.

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 and resource ("Busca CONDICIONES DE CONTRATACION del SEACE") and even expands the CCO acronym (contratos estandarizados de encargos y compras corporativas), so an agent knows exactly what entity is being searched. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like buscar_ocos, buscar_acf, or buscar_contratos, which keeps it from 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?

Provides useful operating guidance: anio's valid values live in listar_filtros, and it explains that re-searching with different filters reuses the same 'ses' without emitting a new id. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as buscar_ocos or buscar_contratos, so usage is largely implied.

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