obtener_contrato_protecciones_p5a

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose that the payload includes fail-closed policies, which is a meaningful domain trait, but it never states that this is a pure read, whether it requires prior setup, or how the contract relates to enforcement.

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, which is appropriately sized. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity leans toward under-specification.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guide to what the returned 'contract' contains, yet it lists three abstract nouns without explaining the structure or how an agent should act on them. For an introspection tool returning policy semantics, this is too thin.

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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 ('Devuelve') and enumerates the returned content (alcance, semántica, políticas fail-closed), but the resource itself is an abstract internal identifier ('bloque P5A') with no elaboration, and it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling obtener_estado_protecciones_p5a. An agent can infer it is a contract/introspection read, but the scope is jargon-heavy.

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 indication of when this contract should be consulted, by whom, or in what sequence relative to siblings like obtener_estado_protecciones_p5a or vincular_curva_proteccion_p5a. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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