Exportar procesos

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true): it discloses the async/background execution model and the polling pattern, the page-to-API-call ratio (10 processes per page = one API call) which signals cost/latency, and the truncation behavior with the publicado_hasta continuation token. It also enumerates the returned summary contents, which is critical given there is no output schema.

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-loads purpose and scope, then layers operational details in short sentences that each carry information. Slight redundancy in the final sentence restating max_paginas default/max already in the schema, but overall it reads efficiently without filler.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: output artifact and summary shape, async retrieval, and pagination continuation. It omits auth requirements and any return-value caveats when zero results match, but nothing blocking 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 is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value over the schema — chiefly that max_paginas caps a series of 10-item pages each costing one API call (a cost implication). The remaining params are left entirely to the schema via the 'same filters as buscar_compras_agiles' pointer.

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 and resource ('Exporta a un archivo ... todas las Compras Ágiles de una búsqueda') and immediately scopes it against the sibling: 'no solo una página', contrasting with the paginated buscar_compras_agiles. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the search tool.

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 filter semantics to buscar_compras_agiles ('Usa los mismos filtros') and gives concrete operational guidance: re-call with the same filters to retrieve a backgrounded result, and use the returned publicado_hasta to continue past the page cap. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when Y' exclusion, but the when-to-use case (need the full set, not one page) is clear.

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