Resolviendo URL del documento de contrato

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the return is a direct GET of the PDF and that the server does not persist it, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error/invalid-id behavior, which is notable for an API-backed lookup with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, then uses labeled Args and Devuelve sections to structure the remaining content. Every part is relevant, with no padding or redundancy.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the input's origin and example and describes the return shape {'ok','url','nota'}. The main omission is the relationship to the sibling url_documento, which would help disambiguation.

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% and the schema only names the field 'Id Documento', so the description must compensate. It does so reasonably well by identifying the parameter as the contract's idDocumentoContrato and giving a concrete example value ('153203160'), adding real meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returning the download URL for a CONTRACT document from the SEACE JSON API, with the resource scoped to contracts. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling url_documento, leaving the contract-vs-generic-document distinction implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the near-identical sibling url_documento, nor any stated prerequisites or sequencing. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the 'documento de un CONTRATO' phrasing.

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