detalle_contrato

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and a genuinely useful behavioral detail (document URLs are direct PDF downloads without a token), but never states that this is a read-only operation, nor mentions auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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-loads the purpose, then uses explicit Args and Devuelve sections. The return-value enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema. Little wasted prose.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing the return payload shape in detail. Minor gaps remain (read-only status, pagination/limits), but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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, and it does: it names the source tools for id_contrato and supplies a concrete example ('2377490'). This gives the agent enough to supply the value correctly, though it does not describe the ID's format 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 verb+resource ('Detalle COMPLETO de un contrato publicado de la API JSON del SEACE') and enumerates the returned sections (cabecera, items, garantias, acciones, documentos). It distinguishes itself by being the full-detail endpoint versus the search tools it references, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'detalles_contratos' or 'ficha_proceso'.

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 helpfully tells the agent where the required id comes from (buscar_contratos or contratos_expediente) and gives an example value, which implies the usage flow. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not route away from the similarly named 'detalles_contratos'.

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