Buscando órdenes de compra y servicio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses pagination (15 filas por pagina), a batch range (paginas 1..8), and non-obvious session semantics (a prior 'ses' enables 'siguiente_pagina', differing filters re-execute while reusing the same ses, no new id is emitted). It omits permission/auth context and does not explicitly declare read-only, keeping it below a 5.

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-loads purpose then organizes details into Args and Devuelve sections, with each param line earning its place given 0% schema coverage. Slightly verbose but appropriately sized for a 7-param tool with no structured documentation.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the Devuelve section enumerates the returned fields (nro, entidad, tipo_orden, numero, objeto_descripcion, fecha_ini, fecha_fin, monto, ruc, entidad_rap, situacion, plazo), and all params are explained. The missing auth/permission behavior and the schema's silent required=0 versus the description's OBLIGATORIO leave a small gap.

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 7 params with formats and examples (anio '2026', mes '9' or 'setiembre', ruc entidad-o-contratista, entidad 'nombre exacto', pagina row count, paginas 1..8). It also flags anio/mes/ruc as OBLIGATORIO, which conflicts with the schema's all-optional required=0 — a mismatch that prevents a top score.

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 (Busca) plus the exact resource (ORDENES DE COMPRA Y ORDENES DE SERVICIO, OC/OS) and its source registry (SEACE). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_contratos, buscar_procesos, and buscar_requerimientos 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 context is implied rather than stated, but there is one useful routing hint — 'ruc... hallalo con buscar_entidades' tells the agent where to obtain a required value. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus buscar_contratos or buscar_cco, so it stops short of the 4-5 tier.

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