url_documento_contrato

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the returned 'url' is a direct GET of the PDF and the server does not store it. It omits any auth/permission requirements or rate-limit context, so it is adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 Args, then return shape — a clean, scannable structure with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the parameter name, but overall efficient.

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, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it explains the parameter's origin and the shape of the return ({'ok','url','nota'}). Only auth/permission context is missing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, and it does: it names the underlying source field (idDocumentoContrato) and gives a concrete example value ('153203160'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string parameter in 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 and resource: returns the download URL of a CONTRACT document from the SEACE JSON API. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling url_documento, so an agent must guess which URL tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description does not say when to call this versus url_documento or the various detalle_* tools, leaving selection to inference.

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