contratos_expediente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope ('ok', 'id_expediente', 'total', 'contratos'), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, error behavior, or whether only 'publicados' contracts are guaranteed. Some value added, meaningful gaps remain.

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 in the first line, then a compact Args block and a Devuelve block. Every sentence carries information: scope, parameter provenance, return shape, and the next-step tool. No filler.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential needs: what it returns, where the id comes from, and which tool consumes the result. Only the absence of pagination/error/permission notes keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines 'id_expediente' as the selection expediente id, names where to obtain it (buscar_contratos) and gives a concrete example value ('1171246'). It stops short of stating the accepted format or length constraints beyond the example.

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: all published contracts for a selection expediente, noting that one process may contain several. It also differentiates from siblings by naming buscar_contratos as the source of the id and detalle_contrato as the follow-up tool, so an agent can place it precisely in the lineage.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: get 'id_expediente' from buscar_contratos, then use detalle_contrato once you have an 'id_contrato'. That gives context for when this tool is the right step, though there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or any prerequisite/precondition caveats.

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