obtener_tratado

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

The description fully discloses the tool's output (list of treaty attributes) and implies a read-only operation. Since no annotations exist, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could mention whether the operation has side effects or requires authentication.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences that first describe the output, then clarify parameter usage. No extraneous information, well structured.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the return value. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling (e.g., what happens when `ref` is not found), but overall it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that `ref` accepts two types of IDs (ficha_id_opaco or numeric id_tratado) and that `catalogo` is used for disambiguation when the ID exists in both bilateral and multilateral catalogues. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 description clearly states it returns a complete file of a treaty, listing specific data like dates, counterparts, signatories, hierarchy, norms, and files. It distinguishes the tool from siblings (e.g., buscar_tratados, leer_tratado) by emphasizing the detailed, comprehensive nature of the output.

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 description explains how to use the `ref` and `catalogo` parameters (e.g., disambiguating when an ID exists in both catalogues). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like `leer_tratado` or `buscar_tratados`, leaving the user to infer.

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