Resolviendo URL del perfil de proveedor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({'ok','url'}) and that the result is a public page, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid or unknown RUC, whether the URL is verified to exist, or whether any lookup/network call occurs.

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 front-loaded sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the Args/Devuelve structure is compact with no filler. Formatting is slightly fragmented but every line carries information.

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-annotation tool, the description covers the what, the argument, and the return shape, which is adequate. It omits error/edge-case behavior for unresolvable RUCs and does not anchor the tool relative to its many sibling URL builders, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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 clarifies that the 'ruc' argument belongs to a proveedor or consorcio, which the bare schema does not. However, it gives no format, length, or validity constraints (e.g., 11-digit RUC), so the gap is only partially filled.

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 outcome (the provider's public profile URL on the OECE 'perfilprov' portal) and the input it derives it from, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the similar URL-building siblings such as url_documento or url_documento_contrato, which keeps it below a 5.

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 explicit statement of when to choose this tool over the sibling URL constructors, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The closest it comes is naming the domain entity (proveedor/consorcio), which only implies the use case.

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