buscar_cco

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: pagination size (15 rows/page), the 1..8 page batching limit, and the session semantics where a re-search keeps the same 'ses' without emitting a new id. It never states read-only vs mutating behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits, so a mutation-safety signal is absent.

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 purpose followed by clearly separated Args and Devuelve sections; each line earns its place. Slightly verbose but well organized and scannable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the 'Devuelve' block correctly enumerates the returned fields (nro, fecha, entidad, descripcion, tipo, codigo, objeto, id_interno). Purpose, parameters, and return shape are all covered. The only gap is the required-vs-optional discrepancy on 'anio' and the absence of any safety/permission note.

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 must compensate and largely does: it defines anio format and value source, lists the objeto options (Bien / Consultoria de Obra / Obra / Servicio), gives tipo examples, and explains pagina/paginas/ses semantics. One flaw: it labels anio OBLIGATORIO while the schema marks it optional with default null, a mild mismatch that could mislead. Overall strong compensation 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching SEACE 'CONDICIONES DE CONTRATACION', with an inline gloss defining the acronym (contratos estandarizados de encargos y compras corporativas). This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like buscar_contratos or buscar_procesos. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent still has to infer which search tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied. It points to listar_filtros as the source of valid 'anio' values and explains the 'ses' reuse path for paging or re-querying, which gives some operational context. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs buscar_contratos/buscar_ocos, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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