cercar_subvencions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches granted subsidies ('concedits') and lists returned fields, but lacks details on pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise — two short sentences that efficiently convey purpose and filter capabilities. Every sentence is necessary, and no extraneous information is included.

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 tool has 10 parameters (none required), a clear purpose, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the core functionality. It could be more complete by adding usage guidelines, but it adequately covers the basics 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds a summary of filter options but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('subvencions i ajuts concedits al RAISC'), and specifies the scope (Catalunya). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing RAISC, while siblings target different databases (BDNS, BOE, etc.) or contract types.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or guidance on prerequisites. It only lists filtering capabilities without context on when it's appropriate.

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