Radiografía de Proveedor: RPE, Contratos Ganados y Cuota de Mercado

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that figures come from 'la muestra reciente' (a sample, not the full universe) — but omits rate limits, output shape and any pagination caveats.

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 lead sentence front-loads the core action and the numbered list is a tight, scannable breakdown of the four outputs. Each line carries distinct information, though it is on the longer side for a two-parameter tool.

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 enumeration of the four result blocks effectively substitutes for one and tells the agent what to expect. For a read-only aggregation tool this is nearly complete; only the sampling/pagination behavior of 'paginas' is left implicit.

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, including the 'paginas' default mapping to ~1,500 contracts. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'termino' (accepted name/RNC/RPE formats) beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Audita integralmente') and resource ('un proveedor o competidor') and then enumerates four concrete sub-tasks (RPE ficha, contract volume, top clients, margins). This clearly distinguishes it from single-query siblings like dgcp_buscar_proveedores or dgcp_buscar_contratos by framing it as a composite audit, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: it targets a single provider/competitor and aggregates public-procurement data about them. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over dgcp_buscar_proveedores or dgcp_buscar_contratos, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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