buscar_expresiones_interes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: 15 rows per page, global continuous 'index', a 1..8 range for multi-page fetches, and the session rule that re-filtering re-executes the search while keeping the same 'ses' without emitting a new id. It also warns what the EI search does NOT return (no publication date or amount per row). Missing: read-only/auth expectations, though 'Busca' strongly implies a read.

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?

Well structured with Args and Devuelve sections, purpose front-loaded in the first line, and one line per parameter. The 'ses' explanation is slightly dense but earns its space given the non-obvious session behavior.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, every parameter, pagination, session reuse, and the returned row shape including id_interno. It even flags absent fields, so an agent knows not to expect dates or amounts per row.

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 entirely, and it documents all ten parameters: enumerated objeto values (Bien / Consultoria de Obra / Obra / Servicio), date format dd/mm/aaaa for desde/hasta, page size, the 1..8 range for 'paginas', and the 'ses' continuation semantics. Minor caveat: it calls objeto OBLIGATORIO while the schema marks nothing required, an upstream-vs-schema mismatch.

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 EXPRESIONES DE INTERES') plus the exact source system (SEACE), which cleanly separates it from the many other buscar_* siblings that target processes, contracts, requirements, or entities. An agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only usage-like content is operational (how to continue a prior search via 'ses' or fetch consecutive pages), not routing guidance.

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