obtener_contrato_p12_escenarios_operativos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fronteras fail-closed', which hints that the returned contract encodes fail-closed behavior, but it never states that the tool is side-effect-free, what authorization or workspace state it requires, or how the returned boundaries should be interpreted.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the payload without filler. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained jargon (P12, fronteras fail-closed) costs a point.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does sketch the shape of the response (scope, actions, fail-closed boundaries). But it leaves the P12 domain undefined and gives no sense of the returned structure, which is the minimum an agent needs to act on the result.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 verb 'Devuelve' plus the enumerated payload (alcance, acciones, fronteras fail-closed) makes clear this is a contract-reader, and the name carries the P12 identifier for sibling disambiguation. However, 'P12' is never explained, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone what domain this contract governs relative to obtener_contrato_p5a or obtener_contrato_p8b_admision_real.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other obtener_contrato_* tools, nor any prerequisite such as requiring a workspace or prior validation step. The agent must infer usage purely from the naming convention.

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