obtener_contrato_p8f1_piloto_real

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 says a contract is returned but never explains what a "contrato" contains, whether it is static metadata or derived state, or what the caller is expected to do with it. The only behavioral signal is that it is likely a read operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true compression.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a highly crowded family of sibling contract tools, the description should at minimum say what the p8f1 contract covers and when it is needed. As written, an agent must guess its role in the P8F workflow.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No arguments means no risk of misuse on the call side.

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?

"Devuelve el contrato del entrypoint integral del primer proyecto real" gives a clear verb+resource, but "contrato del entrypoint integral" is domain jargon and the p8f1 phase code is opaque. Among ~10 sibling obtener_contrato_* tools (p8b_admision, p8f2_integridad, p8f3_repeticion, p8f4_primer_uso), nothing in the text distinguishes this one from the others.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative contract tools. An agent cannot infer from the description alone which of the parallel contract-fetching siblings is the right one to call.

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