listar_filtros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the session is GLOBAL and shared across tools, an omitted session opens a temporary page and reuses a cached one, and CCO only exposes recent years (2024-2026). It omits a safety/permission profile and error behavior, so not 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 with purpose and then cleanly split into Args and Devuelve sections; most content earns its place. Slightly dense and the trailing CCO-year note is a minor aside, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return shapes ({'ok': True, 'combos': ...} and {'ok': True, 'codigos': [...]}) and fills the 0% parameter coverage. Only a safety/permission profile is absent for an unannotated tool, so not 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does fully: it enumerates every valid 'categoria' value ('todos', 'anio', 'mes', 'objeto', 'tipo_seleccion', 'modalidad', 'departamento', 'version', 'encargo', 'tipos_contrato') and explains 'ses' semantics and its default behavior. This is meaning the schema entirely lacks.

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 function: exact values of SEACE search combos and catalogs from the contracts JSON API. An agent can tell this is a filter/catalog-lookup tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like tipos_seleccion_contratos or catalogo_ubigeo, so it falls short of a 5.

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 (fetch valid combo values before filtering) and there is a useful pointer that 'tipos_contrato' yields 'codSeleccion' for buscar_contratos. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or direct comparison to sibling catalog tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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