Leer el documento de una convocatoria

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: sections are located by rule-based title matching, NOT AI, and the user is told to 'comprueba siempre la página citada' — a caveat about extraction reliability that structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage condition then a reliability caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; slightly long with the enumerated apartados list duplicating what the schema already enumerates.

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 must describe the return shape — it does ('texto LITERAL de sus apartados... con el número de página') and notes that documento ids come from this same tool's output. Combined with the schema covering the 4-page and 30000-char limits, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return format details are left implicit.

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 100%, so every parameter (temas, buscar, codigo, paginas, documento, max_caracteres) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the default sections and the words/pages mode in prose, adding little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (lee/devuelve) on a specific resource (el PDF de las bases o convocatoria) and specifies the scope: el texto LITERAL de sus apartados con el número de página. It explicitly carves out the niche versus structured data ('el texto completo que la BDNS no resume'), so an agent can distinguish it from ayuda_detalle without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Úsala cuando haga falta la cuantía por beneficiario, los requisitos o la documentación, que no constan en los datos estructurados'), clearly signaling when this tool beats the structured-data siblings. It does not name the specific alternative tool (e.g. ayuda_detalle), so routing is clear but not fully enumerated.

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