bdns_cercar_concessions

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

The description highlights that it returns real names (privacy implication) and lists return fields. With no annotations provided, this adds important behavioral context. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only search or pagination behavior.

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 concise, with purpose stated first, followed by key features and a tip. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, filters, return fields, and a region-specific tip. It does not mention pagination. Given the presence of an output schema, the missing pagination note is a minor gap but overall adequate for a search 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the filter options and adds a specific tip about using 'CATALUÑA' for community. While helpful, it does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states it searches for concessions (granted subsidies) in BDNS Spain. It lists filters and return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'cercar_subvencions' or 'bdns_cercar_convocatories', though the name suggests distinction.

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 filter options and a tip for Catalonia, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The context of searching for granted concessions implies use cases, but comparative guidance is missing.

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