Generar informe imprimible

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the file is written to disk, the return value is the PATH not the content (explicitly to avoid context bloat), and the output is print-optimized with controlled page breaks and repeated table headers. This explains the readOnlyHint=false write and complements openWorldHint=true. It stops short of noting permissions, overwrite behavior of ruta_salida, or concurrent-write characteristics.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the crucial return-value caveat, then uses a clean bullet list for the five types. Length is justified by 17 params and 5 modes, though the paper-format sentence largely restates the enum descriptions already in the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully covers the contract: what is produced (an HTML file path), where it lands, and how to consume it. Combined with type-specific requirements, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter conditional requirements the schema cannot express (which types require codigo_compra vs. codigo_compra-or-q, that q/region apply to specific types). This meaningfully helps the agent pick valid combinations for a 17-param tool.

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 verb+resource (generates a printable HTML report from Compra Ágil data) and enumerates the five report types, each with its own scope. An agent can immediately tell this is a report-generation/file-output tool rather than a search or analysis tool.

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?

For each type it states the condition ("radar" = prioritized active opportunities; "cotizacion" requires codigo_compra, not sent to Mercado Público; "auditoria" requires codigo_compra or q, etc.), which gives clear selection guidance. It never names the near-duplicate siblings (generar_borrador_cotizacion, radar_oportunidades_calientes), so the agent gets no explicit when-not/to-use-which-alternative routing.

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