Buscando requerimientos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it discloses pagination behavior ('15 filas por pagina'), the paginas limit (1..8), session reuse semantics via 'ses', and explicit return fields plus limitations ('no expone fecha de publicacion ni monto por fila'). It does not cover auth/rate-limit behavior, but for a read-oriented search tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then organized into Args and Devuelve sections. Despite length, every line earns its place by documenting parameters, pagination, and return fields for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient. It documents arguments, return columns, pagination, session reuse, and known limitations, leaving nothing critical unexplained for calling the tool correctly.

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 does: it documents all 10 parameters including objeto as OBLIGATORIO with four enum values, fecha format dd/mm/aaaa, pagination details, and the special 'ses' session mechanism. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Busca en la DIFUSION DE REQUERIMIENTOS del SEACE (bienes y servicios que las entidades requeriran)'. This clearly scopes the tool to public procurement requirement announcements, distinguishing it by resource from siblings like buscar_procesos or buscar_contratos, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description lists arguments and return fields but never says when to use this tool versus sibling search tools, nor when not to use it. Usage is only implied from the purpose statement and parameter list.

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