buscar_requerimientos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: page size (15 filas), the global/continuous 'index', the 1..8 'paginas' limit, and the session-reuse rule where re-searching with different filters keeps the same 'ses'. It also warns that no publication date or amount is exposed per row. Auth/rate-limit behavior is still absent.

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?

A front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly delimited Args and Devuelve blocks. Every parameter line earns its place given the 10-param surface; the only minor redundancy is restating the session re-run rule twice in different words.

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 definition covers parameters, pagination, session semantics, and the returned row shape plus a caveat about missing fields. It is close to complete, with authentication/error behavior the main omission.

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 does: all 10 parameters are explained with meaning beyond their titles, including the OBLIGATORIO marker and enumerated values for 'objeto' (Bien / Consultoria de Obra / Obra / Servicio) and the dd/mm/aaaa date format. This is strong compensation for an undocumented 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 names a specific verb (Busca) and a precise resource (DIFUSION DE REQUERIMIENTOS del SEACE), and scopes it as 'bienes y servicios que las entidades requerirán'. This distinguishes it from the many sibling buscar_* tools by data source, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied through the pagination and 'ses' mechanics, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-another-buscar_* guidance. An agent must infer that this tool covers the requirements-diffusion source rather than procesos, contratos, or PAC.

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