Resumiendo contrataciones por región

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the 'objeto' drill-down does not paginate and is truncated to the first 100 contracts ('mostrados'). It also describes the return shape for both modes. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, 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?

Structured into a purpose sentence plus Args/Devuelve blocks, and the key mode distinction is front-loaded. Slightly verbose, but each section (params, return shape, truncation limit) earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both modes, all parameter values, the return payload keys, the 100-record cap, and the fallback tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents every parameter with examples and derivations: anio format ('2026'), depa as a catalogo_ubigeo code ('19' Pasco), and objeto as an object-type code with the full value set ('62' Bien, '63' Consultoria, '64' Obra, '65' Servicio). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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: a georeferenced summary of published contracts for one department and year, and explicitly distinguishes two operating modes (no 'objeto' = counts/amounts by object type; with 'objeto' = drill-down list). This is precise enough to separate it from siblings like buscar_contratos and detalle_contrato.

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?

Tells the agent exactly when to add 'objeto' (drill-down) and when not to (aggregate summary), names detalle_contrato for the contract sheet, and routes overflow to buscar_contratos with depa+objeto. Alternatives and their triggering conditions are explicit.

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