obtener_contrato_reporte_p7c

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say what the returned contract contains, what 'fail-closed' implies for callers (e.g., stricter validation, refusal semantics), or what happens on error. Practical risk is low because this is a zero-parameter getter, but the disclosure gap remains.

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 sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it does not describe the shape or purpose of the returned contract. An agent knows the name of the artifact it gets back but not what to do with it.

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 clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys; the baseline for 0 parameters applies.

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 a specific resource ('el contrato fail-closed del reporte técnico P7C'), which differentiates it from the sibling exportar_reporte_tecnico_p7c and the other 'obtener_contrato_*' tools by phase. However, it never explains what a 'contrato' actually is in this API (a machine-readable spec of required fields?), leaving the resource partially opaque.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. In particular it does not tell the agent whether to call this before exportar_reporte_tecnico_p7c / exportar_reporte_desde_archivo_p7c, which is the obvious ordering question given the sibling set.

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