Buscando procesos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses server-side filtering, the session-continuity model (same 'ses' reuses the search, no new id emitted), pagination mechanics (15 rows/page, globally continuous index), and the sentinel values for unpublished amounts ('Reservado' / '---'). It even flags that 'campos' holds the raw JS row.

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 purpose, then session policy, then a parameter list, then the return shape — a logical order for a 16-parameter tool. It is dense and lengthy, but nearly every line is load-bearing given 0% schema coverage; minor redundancy in the per-parameter examples keeps it from a 5.

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 16-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies purpose, session/pagination behavior, all parameter semantics, and an explicit return-field listing (including how 'index' feeds ficha_proceso). Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 documents all 16 parameters with meaning and examples (e.g. 'anio' obligatory on first call, 'version' sends '3', 'objeto' enumerates Bien/Consultoria de Obra/Obra/Servicio, 'paginas' bounded 1..8, 'ses' semantics). This goes well beyond the bare schema and resolves several ambiguities.

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 PROCESOS DE SELECCION en el Buscador Publico del SEACE") and gives concrete examples of the record types returned (licitaciones, adjudicaciones abreviadas, comparaciones de precios). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_contratos, buscar_entidades or ficha_proceso.

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 explicit operational guidance: the session policy tells the agent to re-call with the same 'ses' and 'pagina' to continue pagination, and that differing filters start a new search. It also points to listar_filtros for valid 'tipo' values and to ficha_proceso for the row indexes. It lacks explicit "when not to use this vs. sibling X" exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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