secop_inspect_opportunity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the mechanism (DOM tables, __VIEWSTATE, attached documents), which suggests a live page fetch/parse that could be slow or fail on a changed page, but it says nothing about cost, auth, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens with a malformed URL. For a network-scraping tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the extracted artifacts front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a network-fetching tool rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description does list the extracted artifacts. What is missing for a 1-param scraping tool is operational context: prerequisites, expected URL form, and rough cost/latency expectations.

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 0% for the single process_url parameter, so the description must compensate. It does identify the expected input as an 'OpportunityDetail' URL, which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name, but it gives no format details or says whether other URL shapes are accepted or rejected.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspecciona en profundidad') and a specific resource (an OpportunityDetail URL from SECOP II), and enumerates what it extracts (DOM tables, __VIEWSTATE, attached pliegos). This clearly reads as a deep-page scraper and is distinguishable from secop_search_processes, though the description never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 phrase 'en profundidad' implies a deep-dive usage relative to lighter tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the seven siblings. The agent must infer that this is the follow-up step after finding a notice UID.

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