Buscando expresiones de interés

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses pagination limits (15 rows/page, 1..8 pages per call), the global continuous 'index', session reuse semantics for follow-up calls, and notably what the source does NOT return (no publication date or amount per row). It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by clearly delimited Args and Devuelve sections. For a 10-parameter tool this is appropriately sized, with no filler sentences, though the prose is dense and could be slightly tighter.

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 Devuelve section correctly documents the returned row shape (index, nro, entidad, numero, descripcion, id_interno) plus the fields deliberately absent. Combined with per-parameter docs and pagination/session semantics, the definition is largely self-sufficient, with the required-vs-optional ambiguity and missing sibling routing the only real gaps.

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 it documents all 10 parameters with formats and ranges: objeto value list (Bien/Consultoria de Obra/Obra/Servicio), date format dd/mm/aaaa, page size, and page-count bounds. However, it labels objeto as 'OBLIGATORIO' while the schema declares zero required parameters and a null default, creating a minor consistency ambiguity.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Busca EXPRESIONES DE INTERES (EI) publicadas en el SEACE'. The resource (expresiones de interés) is clearly distinct from siblings such as buscar_procesos, buscar_requerimientos, and buscar_contratos, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the parameter set; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over buscar_acf, buscar_requerimientos, etc., nor any when-not guidance. The 'ses' explanation does document continuation/re-search behavior, which is useful context but not selection guidance.

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