obtener_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, but it adds little beyond the verb 'obtiene,' which essentially restates the tool's name. It discloses no error behavior for unknown or malformed RUCs, no uniqueness guarantee, no format requirements, and no side-effect or access considerations. Nothing is misleading, but almost no behavioral context is added.

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 a single 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb, then the resource, then the lookup key. There is no filler, redundancy, or digression; every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one required string parameter and an output schema present, the description conveys the essential invocation pattern. However, it omits guidance on the boundary with buscar_proveedores and leaves RUC format expectations unstated, so the definition is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 document the ruc parameter, yet it only says 'dado su RUC,' which echoes the parameter name. It does not explain the expected format (e.g., the 11-digit Peruvian RUC structure), whether leading zeros or separators are significant, or any constraints on the value. The meaning added over the bare schema is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') with a clear resource ('los datos de un proveedor del Estado') and the identifying key ('dado su RUC'). This distinguishes it from sibling obtener_* tools (which target licitaciones, contratos, adjudicaciones, etc.) and from buscar_proveedores, which is the search counterpart rather than a direct retrieval by identifier.

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?

The RUC-keyed lookup implies the use case: retrieve a specific supplier when its RUC is known. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose this over buscar_proveedores, which also concerns suppliers, and it gives no exclusions or alternative routing. The guidance is present only by inference from the parameter name.

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