cercar_pressupostos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the return fields but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, more detail is needed.

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 two sentences achieving the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sections.

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 the 7 parameters and multiple sibling tools, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and return fields but does not elaborate on filtering options, parameter interactions, or output schema details. For a search tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 only lists return fields that correspond to some parameters (e.g., exercici, programa) but adds no new meaning or usage details beyond the schema. It provides context about what the tool returns, which is marginally helpful.

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 verb 'cerca' (search) and the resource 'pressupostos aprovats de la Generalitat de Catalunya', and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cercar_pressupostos_municipals' and 'pge_despeses' by specifying the government level and budget type.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings alone.

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