buscar_convocantes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the search criteria. It does not reveal pagination behavior (despite the pagina and items_por_pagina parameters), how multiple filters combine, whether at least one filter is needed, or result limits. It is not misleading, but it is too thin to be more than minimally informative.

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 with zero waste: verb and resource come first, the domain-defining parenthetical earns its place, and the filter dimensions are enumerated compactly. Every element contributes to understanding, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and all six parameters are optional with sensible defaults, but the description still lacks pagination semantics, filter-combination behavior, and any differentiation from the obtener_convocante sibling. It is the minimum viable description for a multi-parameter search tool; an agent would benefit from clarification of how the filters interact and when to prefer the singular fetch tool.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It usefully maps four of the six parameters (nombre, codigo_sicp, nivel, tipo_entidad) to real-world concepts. The remaining two (pagina, items_por_pagina) are self-explanatory from their names and default values, so the partial coverage adequately compensates for the empty 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 states a specific verb ('Busca'), a specific resource ('entidades convocantes'), and clarifies the domain term with the parenthetical '(instituciones que contratan)'. It then enumerates the four search dimensions (nombre, código SICP, nivel, tipo), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does without needing to open the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the closely related sibling obtener_convocante or the other buscar_* search tools, and gives no exclusions or preferred-usage context. The only weak hint is the verb 'Busca', which implies a search rather than a get-by-ID use case, but that is left entirely to inference.

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