obtener_record_ocds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read/retrieve operation ('Obtiene') and the nature of the result ('completo'), but it does not mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is adequate but does not go beyond the surface behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies the input with an example. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read 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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it returns and how to specify the OCID. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling tools, though the word 'completo' partially compensates. Overall, an agent can select and call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only type and title with no description, yielding 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter is an OCID and gives a realistic example ('ocds-03ad3f-487119-1'), which is highly informative. It does not fully specify format rules, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 clear verb ('Obtiene'), a specific resource ('proceso de contratación completo (record OCDS)'), and the required input ('dado su OCID'), with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obtener_licitacion or obtener_contrato by emphasizing that it returns the complete record. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 description clearly implies the tool is used when you have an OCID and want the complete contracting process record, as opposed to the more specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the contrast is implied rather than declared. The condition 'dado su OCID' provides clear context, but exclusions are missing.

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