Listando filtros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that ses is GLOBAL and shared across tools, that omitting it opens a temporary page, and that the CCO searcher only exposes recent years (2024-2026). Missing only things like rate limits or failure behavior.

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 labeled Args and Devuelve sections. It is somewhat long but every section (categoria values, return shape, CCO year caveat) contributes actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description responsibly spells out the return shape ({'ok', 'combos'...} and the 'codigos' variant). With no annotations it also covers the key behavioral facts, leaving it complete enough to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates all accepted 'categoria' values and explains the role of 'ses' as an optional cached-session handle. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare undtyped properties.

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 concrete verb+resource: it returns the exact values of the SEACE search-engine combos and the JSON contracts API catalogs. An agent can tell this is a reference/lookup tool rather than one of the many buscar_* search siblings, though it does not name a specific sibling it competes with.

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 ties 'tipos_contrato' explicitly to buscar_contratos via the 'codSeleccion' value, making the downstream use case clear. It also explains the 'ses' reuse for a previous search. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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