Detalle de una Compra Ágil

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing data quirks from real API measurement (quotations appear in 'desierta' not 'cerrada' first-call processes), timestamps in Chile time, empty supplier lists not meaning no offers, and non-CLP currency including exchange rate. This is exactly the behavioral caveat detail an agent needs.

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 the core purpose before the field inventory and caveats, and every section carries relevant information. It is on the long side, cataloguing many returned fields that could be trimmed, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents, and it does so comprehensively: process description, products, bidders, budget, delivery, order state, sustainability flags, plus timezone and edge-case behavior. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the format (XXXXXX-YYY-COTXX) and an example. The description just restates 'código único' without adding syntax or validation nuance, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 (obtiene el detalle completo) and resource (una Compra Ágil específica) retrieved by its unique código. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buscar_compras_agiles (search/list) and obtener_detalle_orden_compra (order-level detail), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Provides useful context ('Confirma el plazo en la ficha del proceso') and warns to check total_ofertas rather than an empty supplier list, which helps interpretation. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over buscar_compras_agiles or how it relates to obtener_detalle_orden_compra, so the when/when-not guidance is only implied.

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