Ver un informe de datos abiertos de Contraloría

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the two possible return shapes (CSV rows vs. metadata + read_pdf pointer), but since an output schema exists, this return-shape information is partly redundant and no further behavioral traits (pagination beyond 'rows', auth, etc.) are disclosed.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary output (rows of the CSV) and then notes the alternative shape. No filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a complete input schema, and an output schema handling return structure, the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly and even hints at a follow-up (read_pdf). It could be stronger by explicitly tying itself to the list_contraloria_informes workflow, hence not a 5.

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 all three parameters (rows, format, informe_id) are already documented in the schema, including defaults, max, and the enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 states a specific resource (a Contraloría audit-reports CSV / annual plan) and what it returns (rows, or metadata plus a read_pdf pointer), so the agent understands it's a single-item fetch. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with the sibling list_contraloria_informes, so it falls short of a 5, though the informe_id schema hint covers routing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the informe_id parameter is described as 'An id from list_contraloria_informes', which suggests a list-then-get flow, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like search_informes_igepn or get_informe_igepn.

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