Auditor Forense de Pliegos: Detección de Cláusulas Trampa y Amarres

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content beyond that: it discloses that the tool also auto-drafts a Solicitud Formal de Aclaración y Enmienda, which is the only hint at output since no output schema exists. It omits detail on what happens when extracto_pliego is omitted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clean numbered enumeration of the four detection/response behaviors. Slightly verbose in restating legal citations, but every item carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description communicates both the analysis dimensions and the generated deliverable, which is what the agent most needs. Minor gaps remain around behavior when the optional pliego text is absent, but overall it is fit for purpose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or usage detail for codigo_proceso or extracto_pliego, so the baseline 3 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+resource (auditar un pliego de condiciones) and enumerates exactly what it detects (Art. 21 Ley 340-06, exigencias desproporcionadas, subcriterios subjetivos) plus the artifact it produces. This clearly separates it from siblings like dgcp_auditoria_colusion (collusion) and dgcp_generador_recurso_impugnacion (appeal drafting).

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 scenario of use is implied by the enumeration of trap-clause types, so an agent can infer this is for suspecting a rigged pliego. But it never states when to prefer this over dgcp_auditoria_colusion or dgcp_generador_recurso_impugnacion, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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