resumen_georef

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the 'objeto' drill-down does not paginate and is truncated to the first 100 contracts ('mostrados'), and explains the return shapes. It doesn't cover permissions or data-freshness, but the pagination/truncation disclosure is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 clean Args/Devuelve sections. It is dense but every line earns its place given the dual-mode behavior and the absence of an output schema; the only slight cost is overall length.

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?

No output schema exists, so the 'Devuelve' section must explain returns and does so fully: the two possible response shapes with their fields, plus the truncation caveat and where to get the full set. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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: 'anio' with example '2026', 'depa' as a catalogo_ubigeo code with example '19' Pasco, and 'objeto' with enumerated codes ('62' Bien, '63' Consultoria, '64' Obra, '65' Servicio). All three parameters gain meaning absent from the schema.

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 (georeferenced summary of published contracts by department and year) and explicitly defines its two distinct modes: aggregate-by-object-type without 'objeto', and drill-down list with 'objeto'. It also names the sibling it relates to ('mismos campos que buscar_contratos'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many other contract tools.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions: without 'objeto' you get the aggregate summary, with 'objeto' you get the drill-down list. It further redirects to siblings with conditions ('para la ficha del contrato usa detalle_contrato', 'para el resto usa buscar_contratos con depa+objeto'), so when/when-not/alternatives are all covered.

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