Inteligencia 360° de Proceso: Quién ganó antes y Estrategia

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — it is a multi-step workflow that auto-scans history, detects competitor pricing, and computes legal guarantees — but says nothing about latency/cost of the 12-page scan or any partial-failure behavior. Adds some value beyond annotations, not rich context.

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 overall purpose, then a tight numbered list where each item is a distinct capability. Slightly long but every numbered point carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back — and it does, enumerating ficha técnica, antecedentes, competitor prices, calculated guarantees, and strategy roadmap. For a composite tool this is reasonably complete, though return format/shape remains unstated.

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 fully documented in the schema (codigo_proceso format examples, paginas_historial default/range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('análisis integral 360° de una licitación pública') and then enumerates the exact five sub-analyses it performs, which cleanly distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings like dgcp_buscar_contratos or dgcp_calculadora_legal. An agent can tell this is an aggregating orchestration tool rather than a lookup.

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 enumerated steps imply when to reach for this tool (when a full 360° dossier is needed instead of individual lookups), and the mapping to siblings such as antecedentes/garantías is discernible. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over calling the individual tools, nor names any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving usage to inference.

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