tipos_seleccion_contratos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ('ok', 'tipos': [{codSeleccion, descSeleccion}]), which is more than most catalog tools offer. However it says nothing about whether the catalog is static/cached, error behavior, or auth needs, so the read-only safety profile is only inferred from the return shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clearly labeled Args and Devuelve blocks. It is tight with no filler, though the Python-docstring framing is slightly unusual for a tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape, so the agent knows what it will get back. For a single-optional-parameter catalog lookup this is largely sufficient, with only error/edge behavior left unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'anio' is the year of the catalog and gives an example ('2026'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema title/default. It does not say what happens if the year is omitted (schema default '2026') or whether invalid years return an empty catalog.

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 resource ('tipos de seleccion de la API JSON de contratos') and signals it is the authoritative catalog ('Catalogo EXACTO'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other catalog siblings such as catalogo_ubigeo, codigos_proceso, or listar_filtros, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: by noting that 'codSeleccion' is the value of 'cod_seleccion' in buscar_contratos, it hints the agent should call this to resolve codes before filtering contracts. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named.

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