Leyendo contratos del expediente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: only published contracts are returned, and the response is a list envelope containing 'total' plus per-contract objects. It omits auth needs, rate limits, pagination for large expedientes, and error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 purpose followed by clearly labeled Args and Devuelve sections, so an agent can parse it at a glance. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every block (input source, return shape, next step) carries information not available elsewhere.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape ({'ok','id_expediente','total','contratos':[...]}) and routing to detalle_contrato, which makes it callable as-is. It lacks any note about result volume/pagination for expedientes with many contracts, a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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% and the only schema text is a title, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the parameter's source ('id_expediente' de buscar_contratos) and gives a concrete example value ('1171246'). It does not describe format validity/type 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Todos los CONTRATOS publicados de un expediente de seleccion') and states the scope constraint ('todos'/'publicados'). It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by naming buscar_contratos as the id source and detalle_contrato as the per-contract follow-up.

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?

It tells the agent where to get the required id ('id_expediente' de buscar_contratos) and what to call next with the returned 'id_contrato' (detalle_contrato), giving a clear data-flow context. It does not state when NOT to use this tool versus broader contract searches, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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