bdns_cercar_convocatories

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no destructive actions). It mentions return fields but lacks details on pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or error responses.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose with verb and resource, the second lists return values. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no extraneous text.

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 4 parameters (none required) and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool returns but omits broader context such as how pagination works, date range interpretation, or relation to siblings. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it only lists return fields. The schema adequately documents each parameter's format and defaults.

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 the tool searches for grant calls in BDNS ('Cerca convocatòries de subvencions a la BDNS') and lists the returned fields (codi BDNS, descripció, òrgan convocant, imports, dates). It is specific and distinct from siblings like 'bdns_detall_convocatoria' and 'bdns_cercar_concessions' by name and context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bdns_detall_convocatoria' for details or 'cercar_subvencions' for broader searches. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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