url_perfil_proveedor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape ({'ok', 'url'}) and that the result is a public page, which is useful. However, it says nothing about authentication, permission requirements, or whether the RUC must already exist in the system.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by cleanly labeled Args/Devuelve sections. No filler; appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 one-parameter URL builder with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input meaning and output shape adequately. Minor gaps around error behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown RUC) keep it from a 5.

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: it clarifies that 'ruc' is the RUC of a provider OR a consortium, a meaningful distinction not present in the schema. That is solid added value for a single required parameter.

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 (supplier profile URL) and names the exact portal context (OECE perfilprov), so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like url_documento or url_documento_contrato, but the resource 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/document tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the brief purpose statement.

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