Precios historicos adjudicados por articulo (UNSPSC)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds behavior beyond them: results are computed over 'los contratos más recientes' (a recency window, not all history) and the response includes concrete examples with institución, proveedor and fecha — useful since there is no output schema. Rate limits or caching behavior are not disclosed.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and price statistics before the use-case justification and the prerequisite pointer. No filler, though the first sentence is long and could be split for faster scanning.

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, the description usefully outlines the returned content (per-unit-of-measure statistics plus institution/supplier/date examples) and the scope over recent contracts. It leaves the exact aggregation window and result cardinality unspecified, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and every parameter (termino, codigo_unspsc, unidad_medida) is documented in the schema with format hints and examples. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond that, 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 resource and scope: unit prices the State actually paid for a given UNSPSC code, with named statistics (mínimo, p25, mediana, p75, máximo) broken down by unit of measure. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dgcp_buscar_contratos or dgcp_inteligencia_proceso, which are referenced as the source of UNSPSC codes rather than as competing price tools.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('fijar el precio de una oferta o detectar sobreprecios') and tells the agent where the required codigo_unspsc comes from ('salen en dgcp_inteligencia_proceso'), which routes the workflow correctly. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a named sibling for an alternative price source.

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