Buscar ayudas y subvenciones

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the upstream data source (BDNS) and naming the returned fields (plazo, presupuesto, beneficiarios, estado) — useful since no output schema exists. It does not describe ordering, pagination or result-volume behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by returns, a worked example, and the alternative tool — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 12-parameter search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: data source, return fields, an example, and sibling routing, while annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around pagination/default limit behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline would be 3. The description exceeds that by giving a concrete parameter-combination example that clarifies how texto, comunidad and beneficiario are meant to be used together, adding meaning beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 (busca) and resource (convocatorias de ayudas y subvenciones), and defines the scope precisely: any Spanish administration, sourced from the Base de Datos Nacional de Subvenciones. It also names the sibling ayudas_recuento for the counting/comparison case, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the counting/comparison case to ayudas_recuento and supplies a concrete worked example mapping a real request to parameters (texto 'digital*', comunidad 'galicia', beneficiario 'autonomo-o-pyme'). It does not cover when NOT to use this tool (e.g. retrieving a single grant, which ayuda_detalle presumably handles), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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