buscar_compras_agiles

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It states the return format (summary list with code, name, status, budget, institution) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It adequately describes what it returns, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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?

The description is five sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second lists filters, third describes return, fourth is a key note, fifth lists valid values. Front-loaded with purpose and efficient.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, return fields, mutual exclusivity, and valid values. It doesn't explain pagination details (covered by schema), but is otherwise complete for a search tool. Could mention ordering default but not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by noting mutual exclusivity of 'q' and 'id', providing region code examples (e.g., 13 for Metropolitana), and listing valid statuses. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter relationships.

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 starts with 'Busca procesos de Compra Ágil en Mercado Público de Chile.' which clearly states the action (search) and resource (agile purchase processes). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on searching/filtering, while siblings like 'obtener_detalle_compra' retrieve specific details.

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?

Provides clear filters (keywords, status, region, date range) and explicitly notes mutual exclusivity of 'q' and 'id'. Lists valid statuses and region codes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though it is implied by its search nature.

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