Detalle de una convocatoria de ayuda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the richness of the payload, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown code, rate limits, or auth needs.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned content categories with no filler. Effective and appropriately sized, though the long enumerations are dense.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does list the main content fields. However, it omits the undocumented max_caracteres_extracto parameter and gives no structural sense of the response, leaving gaps for a detail endpoint.

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 only 50%: the 'codigo' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'max_caracteres_extracto' (500–30000) has no description anywhere. The description alludes to the 'extracto oficial' but never explains the character-limit parameter or its effect, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (a BDNS 'convocatoria') and enumerates exactly what the fact sheet contains — estado, plazo, presupuesto, beneficiarios, bases reguladoras, extracto, documentos. This clearly distinguishes a detail-retrieval tool from the search-oriented siblings, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated against ayudas_buscar.

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: fetch the full record for one convocatoria by its code. The link to ayudas_buscar appears only in the schema parameter description ('lo devuelve ayudas_buscar'), not in the tool description, so there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not or named alternative here.

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