agregaciones_contratacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes the return (totals of contracts, value, paid value), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Given the aggregation nature, it is likely safe, but transparency is moderate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and output but leaves most filter parameters unexplained. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description still lacks details on valid values for 'agrupar_por' (no enum) and how filters interact. More completeness would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'agrupar_por' parameter (grouping field) by listing possible values (proveedor, entidad, departamento, modalidad), but it does not explain the other 6 filter parameters (entidad, proveedor, departamento, fechas, limite). Without descriptions, the agent may not know how to use filters correctly.

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 aggregates SECOP II contracts by provider, entity, department, or modality, and returns totals. It also provides concrete use cases (concentration detection, entity comparison, modality analysis), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are likely search-oriented.

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 implies use for analytical tasks like detecting concentration and comparing entities, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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